Jerry Lewis for President!

Uzi Benjamin is concerned the new head of the IDF is too macho and will make mistakes trying to avenge the last war against Hezballah should the IDF, because Ashkenazi said he will make sure at the end of the next war there will be no doubt over who won. Note Ashkenazi believes the "next" war is inevitable.(See 1 below .)

Azmi Bashara, an Arab Israeli and KM, reportedly has fled the country because of a Shin Bet interrogation involving matters pertaining to alleged very serious security breaches. His supposed renouncing of his citizenship could soon become the pre-text of concentrated Arab attacks on Israel's justice system and treatment of its non- Jewish citizens. (See 2 and 3 below.)

What the Arab world had to say about Speaker Pelosi's visit to Syria. (See 4 below.)

Has the raising of money become the key issue in determining who will be president? If so Jerry Lewis would qualify hands down! I never thought I would long for the day of hearing that word "Gravitas" again!(see 5 below.)

Truth! What's that? Certainly don't expect it from the media. (See 6 below.)

Dick

1) The IDF's lost honor
By Uzi Benziman

On the eve of Pesach, MK Effi Eitam told the nation that he now sleeps a lot better. This occured after he heard Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi tell the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee about how he will make sure that at the end of the next war there will be no doubt over who won. Until then Eitam was worried about the spirit pervading the IDF command, but the briefing by the new chief of staff filled him with optimism: Ashkenazi's language was lucid, he posed clear objectives and he gave his listeners a sense of confidence that he knows what he's doing.

Fighting moods are a bad thing when they come from the chief of staff. During the 1950s, chief of staff Moshe Dayan told prime minister David Ben-Gurion that he preferred commanders who were noble stallions, ones that needed to be restrained when they exhibited excessive enthusiasm to encounter the enemy. Battalion, brigade and division commanders and their subordinates are indeed expected to be soaked in fighting spirit and ready to carry out the missions assigned to them. The members of the general staff, on the other hand, must be much more level-headed in the way they approach the political-security situation.

The Second Lebanon War has left the IDF damaged. The army feels it failed to meet expectations and has since been obsessed with a wish to make amends. A short while after the cease-fire, circles in the IDF began airing assessments that by the following summer (which is closing in) there will be a second round of fighting. The general staff concluded in a series of meetings last November that it was necessary to prepare for an offensive by Syria and Hezbollah in the summer of 2007.

In December 2006, a dispute emerged between the Mossad and military intelligence over Syria's intentions. In February, Brigadier General Yossi Beiditch, head of research at military intelligence, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the Syrian leader is indeed serious about peace with Israel, on his terms, but is preparing for a confrontation because he does not want to be surprised. Last week, the chief of military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, told the cabinet that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are preparing for an American assault against Iran in the summer, and that Syria is taking into account that Israel is actively involved, and so Damascus is preparing for all eventualities.

All this talk is dangerous. Israel emerged from the Second Lebanon War bruised, and with an eroded deterrent. It recognizes this and its enemies believe it. The mere image of a country whose wings have been clipped entices Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinians to challenge it. At the same time, the feeling of stained honor has aroused in the IDF a desire to once more raise the flag of victory and teach the hostile neighbors a lesson they will remember for a long time. There is also a feeling of plain vengeance, and a basic desire to restore to Israel its deterrent. This constellation of considerations and motives feeds a dialogue inside the general staff, which echoes beyond the conference rooms and gives Israel's enemies the impression that it is preparing for war in the coming months - whether this takes place in the Gaza Strip or at the northern border. This situation is sufficient to escalate the tension and begin the motion toward a boiling point.

The politicians were burned in the July-August 2006 conflagration, and it is safe to assume that there will be no rush to go to war, as suggested by the prime minister's statement last week that sought to calm Syrian fears of an Israeli offensive. Nonetheless, the fighting spirit now forming in the IDF - whether against Hamas or Hezbollah - has a great force that can affect the views of the prime minister and his cabinet. The chief of staff will make a serious mistake if he looks at the northern and southern fronts solely through the perspective of weapons. It would not be superfluous to remind him that his real test will be more in preventing war by restoring the deterrent capacity of the IDF, instead of ordering the army's divisions once more into battle.

2)Report: MK Bishara to resign from Knesset

Balad chairman has left Israel and is expected to resign from Knesset after
Passover, Israeli Arab newspaper al-Sinara reports; Balad MK Wasil Taha
denies report. Bishara questioned by police several times in past,
particularly following his visits to Syria.

Balad chairman, Knesset Member Azmi Bishara, has left Israel and is expected
to submit his resignation from the Knesset after Passover, the website of
the Nazareth-based newspaper al-Sinara reported Sunday afternoon, quoting
"senior sources."

The police confirmed that Bishara had left the country.

Balad MK Wasil Taha denied the report. "The publication is unfounded," he
told Ynet.

Syria Visit

"Knesset Member Bishara did not leave the country. He was invited to take
part in a number of conventions and important meetings in Qatar, India and
Egypt. In one of the conventions he is expected to be one of the main
speakers, and may also hold meetings regarding his book which is about to be
published," he said.

Asked whether Bishara planned to resign, Taha said, "This is a hypothetical
matter. The resignation issue is his private matter, and we know nothing
about it."

Bishara has been questioned by the police several times in the past,
particularly following his visits to Syria.

According to the short report, the MK left the country two weeks ago and
returned on Thursday for a couple of hours in order to attend a wedding in
Nazareth.

The Israeli Arab newspaper reported that Bishara planned to submit his
resignation letter via one of his colleagues.

According to the report, Bishara is also expected to announce his
resignation on the Qatari-based satellite TV station al-Jazeera, where he
recently appeared several times as a commentator. His party is also expected
to issue a statement on the matter.

Trip to Syria
More than half a year ago, MK Bishara was questioned by the Police
International Investigation Unit after traveling to Syria and Lebanon.
Before he was questioned, Bishara said that those who should have listened
to his impressions from the visit were the prime minister or minister,
rather than the police.

Bishara went on to call the law which prohibits visits to Syria and Lebanon
a political law.

"They are using propaganda here for which principle? For what, for something
they long to do. The law which prohibits trips is a political law made by
small politicians.

"Would Interior Minister Ronnie Bar-On allow me to work politically? He
would like me not to even visit Israel. This is a political struggle, they
are fighting against us. They should take care of their own business and
leave politics for us," he said.

About two weeks ago, the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center organization
petitioned the High Court of Justice, demanding that the citizenships of the
three members of the Balad faction be revoked following their visit to Syria
several months ago.

The petitioners urged Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik to dismiss the MKs. The
petition is based on the Citizenship Law, according to which an Israeli
citizen automatically loses his citizenship if he visits an enemy state.


According to Basic Law: The Knesset, anyone who is not an Israeli citizen
cannot serve as a Knesset member; the petition therefore claims that the
three National Democratic Assembly members could not keep their positions,
as they violated the Citizenship law, and as a result should lose their
citizenship.

The petition emphasized that the MKs were not immune to the law.

"The Knesset Member Immunity Law, which allows Knesset member to leave the
country unrestrictedly, does not allow them to enter enemy states without
permission," it pointed out.

3) Report: Bishara will quit the Knesset


MK Azmi Bishara (Balad) will resign in the coming days, the Nazareth-based A-Sinara newspaper reported on Sunday.

Bishara will resign following "very serious" allegations; however, a gag order prevents releasing any further details.

Bishara is the chairman of Balad and one of the more outspoken Arab MKs in the Knesset.

According to sources, Bishara left the country immediately following the allegations. The MK, who is currently staying in a Jordan hotel, has been overseas for nearly a week and a half. His family joined him in Jordan on Sunday.

Bishara, said the report, planned to announce his resignation in a televised Al Jazeera interview from Jordan in the coming days and would submit his letter of resignation to the Knesset via one of his colleagues after the Pesach holiday.

The MK's reported upcoming resignation could be connected to suspicions that Bishara had violated a 2001 law forbidding political officials from traveling to enemy states.

# Balad MKs questioned over visits to enemy states

Bishara, along with four other Knesset members, was questioned in September 2006 for making visits to both Syria and Lebanon.

4) The visit to the Middle East, and to Syria in particular, by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has provoked mixed reactions in the Arab world. Some wrote that Pelosi's visit challenged the foreign policy of the Bush administration, and that it had improved the U.S.'s image in the Arab and Muslim world. Others took a more skeptical approach, denying that the visit had made any major change. Still others were highly critical, and accused Pelosi of damaging the cause of democracy in Syria.

The following are reactions from the Arab media to Pelosi's visit:

Syrian Journalist: Pelosi Has Opened the Door to a Syria-U.S. Dialogue

Pelosi's visit was well received in Syria. While a number of delegations of U.S. congressmen had come to Syria in recent months, due to her status this visit was understood to be a significant development that could initiate a Syria-U.S. dialogue.

In an interview, Syrian Information Minister Muhsin Bilal told Arab television stations that Pelosi's meeting with Assad was "effective and positive."

He added that the visit had "helped to break the barrier that the American administration wanted to erect around Syria," and that "Pelosi, who represents Congress and the American people, has a spirit of dialogue and understanding for issues in the region and for Syria's important role in the region."(1)

Columnist Muhammad 'Ali Boza wrote in the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra that Pelosi's visit was "an important turning point in American public policy, on the level of the street and public opinion, which has begun to act as a pressure on [the government] and to understand – even if belatedly – the severity of the damage that the official policy of the new Republicans [sic] has caused…

"There is no doubt that the diplomacy of dialogue and negotiations with Syria, and listening to the Syrian position on the burning subjects and the numerous issues relating to the region and the conflict, are recognition of the importance and centrality of the Syrian role, and [recognition] that it is impossible to ignore it and leap over it, and that it would be absurd to put forward plans or solutions to which Syria does not agree, and which are not in keeping with Syria's fundamental national and pan-Arab principles…"(2)


Egyptian Press: Pelosi Proved that Isolating Syria is Absurd

The official Egyptian dailies also saw Pelosi's trip to Syria as a positive step. Al-Ahram's Arab affairs editor Mas'ud Al-Hanawi wrote: "The statements by Pelosi, who ignored the White House's criticism of her, were more balanced, sensible, and diplomatic [than the White House's approach] when she said that her visit to Damascus was a good opportunity to gather facts and build confidence… What has greater benefit and influence – the isolation of the president of a large and influential country like Syria, or dialogue with it and getting to know the true Syrian positions from the source?..."(3)

An editorial in the following day's Al-Ahram read: "Pelosi's visit is likely to verify the failure of the Bush administration's foreign policy in the Middle East, and it may be assumed that the visit will cause great embarrassment to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who visited the region three times this year without her talks having yielded any concrete results…

"The visit to Damascus has achieved two important things. First, the opening of a U.S.-Syria dialogue to understand the situation… in the region, [as a step] towards taking affairs [into the hands] of both sides, in matters in which the U.S. believes Syria is involved, and can settle through peaceful means…

"Second, Pelosi's visit to Damascus included the possibility of renewing the peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, which have been frozen since 2000.

"It is clear that Pelosi's talks in Damascus attest to the absurdity of isolating Syria, in that it is a central player in the region."(4)


Qatari Columnist: "It Is As If Lightning Had Struck the White House"

Qatari columnist Mazen Hammad wrote in the Qatari daily Al-Watan: "It is as if lightning had struck the White House. This is how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Damascus could be described. This wise woman, who is considered the third most senior American [official], is not only bringing her country back to sanity, but is also contributing to improving the image of the U.S. in the Arab and Muslim world.

"The talk in the White House of 'mixed signals' sent to Syria by the visit is not true. The visit sends one [single] message – a message of the American people's challenge to the foreign policy adopted by the American administration…

"The important message that Nancy Pelosi has sent, not only to the Middle East but to the entire world, is that the closed-door policy always fails, and that the use of military force and economic violence in order to assure political ends that rely on [American] hegemony is equivalent to robbery… Force that does not open political horizons cannot succeed in forcing solutions.

"Pelosi's visit does not work wonders, but it is a kind of cry that emphasizes that dialogue is important in order [to arrive at] an agreement, and that the colonialist desire that drives people like Bush and Cheney and guides their positions on foreign policy is political sadism, arrogant egoism, and hidden racism that derives pleasure from humiliating others and hearing their groans…"(5)


Saudi Daily: The Visit Breaks No New Ground

An editorial in the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh took a reserved stance on Pelosi's visit: "The exaggerated attention to the differences between the two American parties is illogical, since at the high level, the supreme interests remain, and do not change with a change in leadership, or even with a change of the party [in power]. House Speaker Pelosi's visit to the region breaks no new ground, when she comes to Damascus after a visit to Lebanon and Israel…

"The new visitor needs to understand that delegations that continue to come to visit and present some convoluted solutions with impossible conditions cause the Arabs to place no trust in any new faces, so long as they have not given anything concrete…"(6)


Editor of Arab Reformist Website: "Shame on Ms. Pelosi!"

In an article titled "Shame on Ms. Pelosi for Shaking the Hand of the Damascus Hangman!" Omran Salman, the Bahraini editor of the reformist website Aafaq, wrote that Pelosi had turned her back on Syrian reformists and had harmed the cause of democracy in Syria:

"Of course no observer of Middle Eastern affairs could at all take seriously what Pelosi said [about Syria's willingness to renew the peace process]. The most [such an observer] could do would be to struggle to keep from laughing…

"What the honorable U.S. congresswoman said has no basis in reality. Syria did not say that it would stem the flow of terrorists into Iraq. Likewise, it did not say that it would close the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Damascus and expel their leaders. If it had wanted to do this, it would have done so years ago, in response to American demands and pressures…"


Pelosi Delivered a Blow to the Liberal Opposition in Syria and Frustrated Reformists' Hopes

"The only result that Pelosi achieved in visiting Damascus, and in sitting down with the Syrian president and shaking his hand, was to deliver a blow to the liberal opposition in Syria and frustrate reformists' hopes for change. By breaking through the ring of isolation [surrounding] Bashar Assad's regime, Syria advanced [several] steps towards repression and despotism, and the march of reform and democracy fell behind.

"Is it any secret that the Syrian regime supports terrorism and is the prime suspect in being behind the… Hariri assassination and the assassinations of a number of other Lebanese journalists and politicians?

"Is it any secret that the Syrian regime is one of the most vicious of regimes, and one of the most repressive, in the region…?

"Perhaps Pelosi did not know… that during her visit to Damascus, this regime was specializing in torturing Syrian oppositionists – among them Kamal Al-Labwani, the founder of the Liberal Democratic Rally in Syria…

"What was Kamal Al-Labwani's crime? In October-November 2005, Al-Labwani toured Europe and the U.S. to gather support for the cause of democracy in Syria. In the U.S., Al-Labwani met with members of the U.S. government and Congress and members of Amnesty International…"


Pelosi Rewarded the Hangman and Turned Her Back on the Victim

"Instead of demanding [Al-Labwani's] immediate release [from prison], Pelosi went to reward the hangman, and turned her back on the victim. Did Al-Labwani fall victim to the trust he placed in America's promises to support democracy and those demanding it?

"This is more than saddening; it is disgraceful to the highest degree. But not all of the blame falls on Ms. Pelosi alone. Over the last four months, more than 10 U.S. members of Congress, from both parties… have made the pilgrimage to Damascus and met with Assad… What is certain is that support for reform and democracy in Syria was not on their agenda.

"Any observer cannot help but be astounded how elected representatives of the American people, which loves liberty and humanity and is devoted to democracy, can engage with a first-rate dictatorial regime..."(7)

Endnotes:
(1) Teshreen (Syria), April 5, 2007.
(2) Al-Thawra (Syria), April 6, 2007.
(3) Al-Ahram (Syria), April 6, 2007.
(4) Al-Ahram (Egypt), April 6, 2007.
(5) Al-Watan (Qatar), April 6, 2007.
(6)Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), April 4, 2007.
(7) www.aafaq.org , April 6, 2007.

5) The End of Inevitability:
By Richard Wollfe


The Clinton camp pressed donors to give only to Hillary. Then the strategy backfired.
Obama is a master at working the crowd.

There's a turncoat inside Hillary Clinton's money machine. Over the past several years, Leonore Blitz has helped raise about $250,000 for Clinton's Senate races, and she signed up early to help the new presidential campaign. But in recent weeks the Manhattan marketing consultant has secretly attended finance meetings and fund-raisers for Clinton's archrival, Barack Obama. Under intense pressure from the Clinton team to pick sides, Blitz—who bundled more than $1 million for John Kerry in 2004—felt deeply conflicted. Clinton operatives have warned donors not to contribute to other campaigns, and put a price on disloyalty: early supporters will be valued and latecomers scorned. But now Blitz is coming out of the shadows, ready to test the rules. "I have been a lifelong advocate of women and minorities' participating and running for political office," she told NEWSWEEK last week. "Therefore, I'm supporting both Clinton and Obama."
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The Clinton campaign denies that it has strong-armed anyone, saying the warnings were made in jest. But whatever tactics Clinton is using, she cannot be happy about how they're working. Clinton operatives had described March 31, the reporting deadline for initial fund-raising, as "the first primary." Their aim was to knock out weaker rivals and reinforce Clinton's aura of invincibility. As it happened, Obama won the money contest with $23.5 million for the primaries, while Clinton raised an estimated $20 million. (The remainder of Clinton's cash—an additional $16 million—is either destined for the general election or was carried over from her Senate race last year.) Clinton attracted half the number of donors that Obama recruited, despite the Illinois senator's late start in mid-January. Online fund-raisers contributed about a third less to Clinton than to Obama, giving her $4.2 million, compared with his $6.9 million.

What happened to the Clinton juggernaut? The answer lies partly in her go-for-broke strategy. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and for some fund-raisers the Clinton team crossed it. "They clearly communicated a message that this candidacy is inevitable because we'll have more experienced consultants, more political insiders, more money and more of every resource that is vital to being nominated," says a prominent New York donor who joined the Obama camp but declined to be named to protect friendships with Clinton supporters. "Therefore, you are politically stupid if you don't get it, if you can't add."

Big donors to any campaign are keenly interested in what their money gets them. Newcomers to Clinton's orbit don't expect to have much influence or access. So they have fewer reasons to call on wealthy friends for more cash. "That tent seemed pretty much full," says Howard Gutman, a D.C. lawyer who was part of the small team that raised $10 million for Mark Warner's aborted presidential effort. Several campaigns courted Gutman, but he chose Obama over Clinton. "I could raise money from now to eternity and not really be on the radar screen. And the Obama camp seemed to offer more upside in terms of personal fun for the next year and change for the country for the future." In that way, the start-up feel of the Obama campaign—even with its lack of manpower and experience—is a selling point for some donors. "The fact that this is new and people are having their input and also having a voice in the process is all part of the attraction," says Penny Pritzker, Obama's national finance chair. (The campaign has mirrored that on its Web site, asking supporters to contribute policy ideas.)
A handful of old friends from Bill Clinton's campaigns are setting aside loyalties to join Obama's camp. Alan Solomont was an overnight guest at the Clinton White House in the first term, and the national party's finance chair in the second. Now he's raising cash for Obama because, Solomont says, he represents change. "People are ready for a new generation, a new face and a new voice," Solomont tells NEWSWEEK. "And Barack Obama is the only candidate who speaks to that."
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Of course, the money race has only just begun: the first real primaries are still nine months away. In the peculiar expectations game of this early phase, Obama must now prove that he's not a one-quarter wonder. His fund-raisers believe they have room for growth among the 45,000 online donors who gave less than $100 last quarter. But they also are bracing for a big comeback from their rivals.

Clinton's network of consultants and deep-pocketed friends may be her best asset in a long, expensive contest. But her big campaign machine is also costly. Clinton spent on average more than $1.4 million a month during her Senate campaign last year, including $400,000 a month on consultants. It's not clear how much cash she's burning now, but her consultants remain the same.

Finding a lot of new donors, even among some of Clinton's natural allies, may not be easy. Blitz founded the National Women Business Leaders Council for the DNC in 2004. But when she called on her group to attend a Clinton fund-raiser last month, less than a third signed up. "I was surprised when I found out this wasn't a greater percentage of women," she says. "I know there are some major New York women donors that are not supporting Hillary to the extent they could." Why not? Hope Winthrop also raised a seven-figure sum for Kerry in '04 and thinks of Clinton as "a great senator." But she's more attracted to what she sees as Obama's freshness. "There was a sense of inevitability around the Clinton campaign that maybe made people a little wary," she says. "Now they will see there are several choices out there and it's not all locked up." That's the problem with inevitability: once the all-powerful aura is gone, it's hard to get it back.

6) America's Broken-Down Media
By Ray Robison

According to Mark Thompson, writer for Time magazine, America's army is broken. While it can not be argued that the military can possibly maintain the same state of readiness in war time as it does in peace time, broken has a certain specific ring to it: incapable, demoralized and poorly trained.

Mr. Thompson begins the article, - featured on the Drudge Report - with the story of Private Matthew Zeimer. Brave PVT Zeimer died within hours of his arrival at a Forward Operating Base in Iraq. Thompson describes PVT Zeimer's training before going on to make the case that the surge cut the young Private's training short. In Mr. Thompson's recounting of PVT Zeimer's tale, he essentially was killed because he had insufficient training.

If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training-a taste of what troops will face in combat-that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.



Yes No
Yes No

Yes No


Mr. Thompson finds confirmation from Congressman Murtha:

The truncated training-the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone-"is absolutely unacceptable," says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. "The readiness of the Army's ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam."

Sounds like a pretty solid case doesn't it? But something just didn't sit right with me. I immediately knew this wasn't the full story. So I used a journalistic research tool, possibly unavailable to Time, called Google.

You see, this article makes the brave young Matthew Zeimer sound like an infantry soldier. Infantry soldiers go to the Infantry Training Brigade for 14 weeks of intense training after completing basic training. How can it be he didn't go? Is the army so bad off infantry soldiers don't go to Advanced Infantry Training anymore?

In my research, I found this article "Soldier's last days at home memorable" at the Billings Gazette. The article tells the story of the brave Private's short military career as told by his family and friends.

Matthew had come home on leave Nov. 8, after more than five months of basic training

Five months of basic training? What this article means is that he did nine weeks of Basic Training, which every soldier does, and then went for three more months of Advanced Individual Training in which a soldier trains on their MOS (Military Occupational Skill). About.com explains the process well:

Individuals who enlist under the 13X Infantry option attend Field Artillery OSUT (One Station Unit Training), which combines Army Basic Training and Field Artillery AIT (Advanced Individual Training), all in one course.

But most civilians just think of it all as basic training. The point being, this is three more months of a 24 hour a day resident course, tough as nails training that Mr. Thompson has neglected to mention. Three months is a significant amount of training.

And it doesn't stop there. According to the Billings Gazette:

Staff Sgt. Thad Rule, with the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Glendive, said Matt joined the Future Soldier Program at the start of his senior year of high school, shortly after he turned 17. He spent nearly 10 months learning some of the basics about the Army, preparing him for his training.

Rule said Matt "wanted to do a combat job" and couldn't wait to join the Army. To speed things up, he opted to undergo artillery support training rather than going into the infantry, a move that got him into the Army a month earlier.

Not only did PVT Zeimer do three more months of training than Thompson lets on, he spent ten months of training before he even went in the army. While this certainly does not equate to training in an active duty setting, it is a training opportunity that most soldiers don't get. In real terms, this brave young man was ahead of the training that a typical artillery junior enlisted soldier received when I was an artillery officer in the mid-90s under President Clinton.

So was this truncated training as Murtha called it effective? Was he really ready? The Gazette goes on:

Matt was 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighed maybe 175 pounds when he went in for basic training.

"The kid came back and he was fit," Rule said. "I'd say his confidence was the big thing."

Tessa Hopper, Matt's former girlfriend, noted the same thing when she spoke Sunday evening during a wake service for Matt.

"He was proud as a peacock when he came home for the holidays," she said.
Damon noticed it, too. Matt had always liked to exercise, he said, but he got in excellent shape during basic training.

"He loved the way he looked when he came home from basic," Damon said.

So according to PVT Zeimer's loved ones, he was fit, proud, motivated and anything but broken-down. He was a soldier damn it! Not a victim. Not a political talking point.

Mr. Thompson also tells us:

The Army and the White House insist the abbreviated training was adequate. "They can get desert training elsewhere," spokesman Tony Snow said Feb. 28, "like in Iraq." But outside military experts and Zeimer's mother disagree. The Army's rush to carry out President George W. Bush's order to send thousands of additional troops more quickly to Iraq is forcing two of the five new brigades bound for the war to skip standard training at Fort Irwin, Calif. These soldiers aren't getting the benefit of participating in war games on the wide Mojave Desert, where gun-jamming sand and faux insurgents closely resemble conditions in Iraq.

Thompson tells us that the army callously failed to train the young private in desert warfare (which is not a deployment requirement for US Army soldiers anyway). His writing certainly makes Tony Snow appear flippant about the issue. But we learn this from the Billings Gazette:

After leaving the U.S. on Jan. 13, Damon said, Matt went to Kuwait for additional training before shipping out to Iraq on Jan. 25.

Yet more training? Yes, and it was in the desert just like Tony Snow indicated. But what about that training in Fort Irwin at the National Training Center (NTC) that Mr. Thompson referred to in his article? Would that have helped the brave Private? You bet. More training is always better. But at some point the training stops when the fighting starts (actually, it continues even in combat, but not at a training facility). And a better understanding of what the NTC training mission is makes this clear:

NTC MISSION

Provide tough, realistic joint and combined arms training

Focus at the battalion task force and brigade levels

Assist commanders in developing trained, competent leaders and soldiers

Identify unit training deficiencies, provide feedback to improve the force and prepare for success on the future joint battlefield

Provide a venue for transformation

Take care of soldiers, civilians, and family members

Joint, combined, battalion, brigade, these are all keywords which mean that the NTC is first and foremost a unit trainer. The individual soldier goes to NTC more by providence than by design. Nobody keeps track of your NTC rotations. It is not a training requirement for individual readiness. An individual unit may not be scheduled for rotation to the NTC for as long as two years. It is one facility and there are many brigades. The NTC is not and has never been a requirement for individual deployment.

What happens at NTC? A unit rotation lasts four weeks. The unit typically spends the first week in preparation and the last week in recovery. That means that the unit spends two weeks "in the box". While the training is valuable, and is the best two weeks of training a unit can get in the army, it is only two weeks after all.

While it certainly increases the skills of the individual soldier, you don't have to send a soldier to brigade level training to learn how to clean the sand out of your weapon as Mr. Thompson laments. And dealing with civilians on the battlefield can be taught anywhere.

Mr. Thompson's article also states:

Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both.

What Mr. Thompson doesn't tell the reader is than the soldier that was killed with PVT Zeimer was "Spc. Alan E. McPeek, a 20-year-old who had been in Iraq for 14 months" according to the Gazette. Of course, it's difficult to make a soldier appear to have died due to lack of training when the soldier who died next to him was a 14 month combat veteran, isn't it?

As disgusted as I am by the absolutely misleading nature of Mr. Thompson's article and how it affects the general public's perceptions, I am far more sickened by these vultures not explaining to the families of men like PVT Zeimer that their son was a hero, not a victim to be used in creating a political talking point for shoddy journalists and opportunist politicians. Army officials should explain what the standards of deployment training are to the families of our brave soldiers before rotten tomatoes like these convince them that heroes like Matthew died for lack of training.

God bless you Private Zeimer.