Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Article 1; Section 5; Paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United States


Via Ali Watkins
McClatchy Washington Bureau



The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reportedly gave its approval last week to an Obama administration plan to provide weapons to moderate rebels in Syria, but how individual members of the committee stood on the subject remains unknown.

There was no public debate and no public vote when one of the most contentious topics in American foreign policy was decided – outside of the view of constituents, who oppose the president’s plan to aid the rebels by 54% to 37%, according to a Gallup Poll last month.

In fact, ask individual members of the committee, who represent 117 million people in 14 states, how they stood on the plan to use the CIA to funnel weapons to the rebels and they are likely to respond with the current equivalent of “none of your business:” It’s classified.

Those were, in fact, the words Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the committee, used when asked a few days before the approval was granted to clarify her position for her constituents. She declined. It’s a difficult situation, she said. And, “It’s classified.”

She was not alone. In a string of interviews over days, members of both the Senate intelligence committee or its equivalent in the House were difficult to pin down on their view of providing arms to the rebels. The senators and representatives said they couldn’t give an opinion, or at least a detailed one, because the matter was "classified."

Syria is not the only topic where public debate has been the exception because a matter was classified. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., spoke last week about the frustration he felt because he could not tell his constituents that he believed secret rulings from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had expanded the collection of telephone and Internet data far beyond what many in Congress thought they had authorized.

* OF COURSE HE CAN TELL HIS CONSTITUENTS AND INDEED ALL AMERICANS! PERHAPS HE'D BE ARRESTED. IF SO... THEN SO BE IT; HE SHOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK; THEY ALL SHOULD BE.

[T]he classification barrier may not be as watertight as committee members make it out to be. Senate Resolution 400, which established the intelligence committee in 1976, has a section specifically devoted to committee oversight of the classification system, which is directed by the executive branch. If a member of the committee feels that classified information is of valid public interest, he or she can ask that it be declassified. “The Select Committee may, subject to provisions of this section, disclose publicly any information in the possession of such committee after a determination by such committee that the public interest would be served by such a disclosure,” the resolution reads.

When Wyden was asked if he ever used that provision to attempt to get information declassified during his time on the committee, he said “I don’t know which specific provision you’re talking about.”

* NICE... MAKES YOU PROUD, DOESN'T IT...?

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

Certainly, trying to determine how individual committee members feel about Syria policy can be frustrating. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mark Warner, D-Va., refused to state a clear opinion, citing classification.

Others expressed general opinions, though they would say nothing about just what the Obama administration had proposed. Sometimes it was difficult to know from their comments if they were in favor or opposed. “I’m worried we’re behind the curve,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., “(We should get involved) only if we’re ahead of the curve.”

* ONE FINAL POINT, MY FRIENDS... ABOUT THE "CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM," WHICH IS DIRECTED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

* ARTICLE ONE; SECTION FIVE, PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES READS AS FOLLOWS:

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

* "...AS MAY IN THEIR JUDGMENT REQUIRE SECRECY..."

* NOT "...AS MAY IN THE EXECUTIVE'S JUDGMENT REQUIRE SECRECY..."

* I'M NOT A LAWYER... BUT I CAN READ.

* THESE SCUMBAGS ARE PULLING A FAST ONE - PERIOD. RETURNING TO THE NEWS ARTICLE:

It’s an increasingly common stance that advocates of open government say undermines the very principle of a representative democracy.

“It’s like a pandemic in Washington, D.C., this idea that ‘I don’t have to say anything, I don’t have to justify anything, because I can say it’s secret,’” said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank.

“Classified” has become less a safeguard for information and more a shield from accountability on tough subjects, said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy.

“Classification can be a convenient pretext for avoiding difficult questions,” he said. “There’s a lot that can be said about Syria without touching on classified, including a statement of general principles, a delineation of possible military and diplomatic options, and a preference for one or the other of them. So to jump to ‘national security secrecy’ right off the bat looks like an evasion.”

* AVAIL YOURSELVES OF YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, MY FRIENDS... WHILE THEY STILL EXIST. AT SOME POINT AMERICANS WHO DESIRE TO RETAIN THE "C" IN AMERICA AS OPPOSED TO SWAPPING IN A "K" WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION.

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 31, 2013


Finally getting around to newsbiting...

Books... Books... Books...


OK, kids, time for a bit of "free association!"

RIF... Reading Is Fundamental.

Put in my own inimitable fashion... "If you're not a reader - you're an a--hole."

Fiction... non-fiction... biographies... ya gotta read, folks!

Books... novels... magazines... newspapers... hard-copy... cyber-based...

Right now I'm (finally!) finishing off "Coolidge" by Amity Shlaes while at the same time finishing off "Split Image," a Jesse Stone novel by the late Robert B. Parker.

So... what are you folks reading...???

I'm pretty sure that I've created "You Should Read ________________" posts in the past. I know I've recommended specific books, authors, series...

I know I've mentioned to you guys and gals that books are one of my favorite gifts to... er... gift. (Both kids and adults!)

Anyway... I'd like for folks to use the comments section of this post to offer your own suggestions. (And I'll of course join you!)

Here... I'll start - starting here on this page's front page:

Robert A. Heinlein 

Perhaps the single most influential author I've ever read. That's Dr. Heinlein by the way. The Dean of American Science Fiction.

Where's My Flying Car...?!?!


Got out of the shower at the gym after this morning's workout to find a "human interest" segment on the news highlighting a guy who flies around via jetpack.

My reaction...?

I want one...!!! (What the hell did you expect my reaction to be?!)

All of which got me to thinking...

Where's my flying car...?

I was promised a friggin' flying car!

OK... maybe not "promised"... but strongly steered into the premise via the Jetsons.

And where's our Moon Base? (And our Mars Base...?!?!)

Yeah, yeah... I've got the friggin' internet; big deal! (Yeah... I know it is... but not in the way a flying car, jetpack, Moon Base, or Mars Base would be!)

iPhones...? iPads...?  Great if you never want a moment of piece or if you're so limited as an individual that the idea of relying upon your own consciousness for amusement and contentment leaves you cold.

Where are all the adult "toys" previewed via Popular Mechanics when we were kids?

Is your car big? Is it fast? Is it comfortable? Well, folks, my inferno red Dodge Charger with the HEMI is all of that, and though it also has Bluetooth compatibility (and verbal command/response mode) I surely didn't purchase "Hank" for the "tech" - I purchased "Hank" for the engine... the performance... not for the "practicality."

July 20, 1969.

I watched Man first step foot on the Moon. Live. From the floor of Uncle Art's and Aunt Fran's house in Saugerties, NY. 

I was 7 years old.

Today... at 51... tears well up when I recall that nowadays... the year 2013 of the Age of Obama... the only way Americans get into space is via paying the Russians to take us.

Anyway...

  

Monday, July 29, 2013

How The GOP Can Do The Right Thing On Immigration — And Win!




To: Republican Colleagues

July 29, 2013


The GOP needs to flip the immigration debate on its head.

The same set of GOP strategists, lobbyists, and donors who have always favored a proposal like the Gang of Eight immigration bill argue that the great lesson of the 2012 election is that the GOP needs to push for immediate amnesty and a drastic surge in low-skill immigration.

This is nonsense.

The GOP lost the election — as exit polls clearly show — because it hemorrhaged support from middle-income and low-income Americans of all backgrounds.

In changing the terms of the immigration debate we will not only prevent the implementation of a disastrous policy, but begin a larger effort to broaden our appeal to working Americans of all backgrounds.

* EXACTLY! SEMI-SKILLED AND LOW-SKILLED LABOR SQUEEZES DOWN WAGES - AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES - FOR CITIZEN SEMI-SKILLED AND LOW-SKILLED AMERICANS!

Now is the time to speak directly to the real and legitimate concerns of millions of hurting Americans whose wages have declined and whose job prospects have grown only bleaker. This humble and honest populism — in contrast to the Administration’s cheap demagoguery — would open the ears of millions who have turned away from our party. Of course, such a clear and honest message would require saying “no” to certain business demands and powerful interests who shaped the immigration bill in the Senate.

* MAIN STREET, YES! WALL STREET, NO!

In Senator Schumer’s failed drive to acquire 70 votes, he convinced every single Democrat in his conference to support a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 immigration plan while dramatically boosting the number of low-skill workers admitted to the country each year on a permanent basis. All this at a time when wages are lower than in 1999, when only 58% of U.S. adults are working, and when 47 million residents are on food stamps.

Even CBO confirms that the proposal will reduce wages and increase unemployment.

Low-income Americans will be hardest hit.

Ordinarily, this would be an act of political suicide for Democrats. How can they possibly succeed with a plan that will so badly injure American workers? Perhaps Senator Schumer, the White House, and their congressional allies believe the GOP lacks the insight to seize this important issue, push away certain financial interests, and make an unapologetic defense of working Americans. They seem, in fact, to expect the GOP House to drag their bill across the finish line. Indeed, more than a few in our party will argue that immigration reform must “serve the needs of businesses.”

* THE STUPID REPUBLICANS!

What about the needs of workers?

Since when did we did we accept the idea that the immigration policy for our entire nation — with all its lasting social, economic, and moral implications —should be tailored to suit the financial interests of a few CEOs?

* OR THE NEEDS OF IMMIGRANTS THEMSELVES? OR THE NEEDS OF FOREIGN NATIONS?! SHOULD NOT U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY SERVE FIRST AND FOREMOST THE PRESENT AND FUTURE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...?!?! (RHETORICAL QUESTION; THE ANSWER IS "YES!")

Americans broadly oppose further increases to our current generous immigration levels by a 2-1 margin, but the opposition among those earning less than $30,000 is especially strong: they prefer a reduction to an increase by a 3-1 margin. And no wonder! According to Harvard’s Dr. George Borjas, it’s the working poor whose wages have declined the most as a result of high immigration levels!

The GOP has a choice: it can either deliver President Obama his ultimate legislative triumph — and with it, a crushing hammer blow to working Americans that they will not soon forgive — or it can begin the essential drive to regain the trust of struggling Americans who have turned away.

As Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol wrote in a joint op-ed, “the Gang of Eight bill unleashes a flood of additional low-skilled immigration. The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers… It’s most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility.”

Like ObamaCare, this 1,200-page immigration bill is a legislative monstrosity inimical to the interests of our country and the American people.

Polls show again and again that the American People want security accomplished first... that they do not support a large increase in net immigration levels... and that they do not trust the government to deliver on enforcement.

* CERTAINLY NOT THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT! BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - FORMER "LAW LECTURER" - BELIEVES THAT ARTICLE TWO, SECTION THREE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOESN'T APPLY TO HIM!

The GOP should insist on an approach to immigration that both restores constitutional order and serves the interests of the American worker and taxpayer. But only by refusing any attempt at rescue or reprieve for the Senate bill is there a hope of accomplishing these goals. Instead of aiding the President and Senator Schumer in salvaging a bill that would devastate working Americans, Republicans should refocus all of our efforts on a united push to defend these Americans from the Administration’s continued onslaught.

[Unfortunately, President Obama's] health care policies, tax policies, energy policies, and welfare policies all have one thing in common: they enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people.

* THEY ENRICH THE OLIGARCHS AND THEIR HANGER-ONERS! THEY ENRICH THE OBAMARCHY!

Our goal: higher wages, more and better jobs, smaller household bills, and a solemn determination to aid those struggling towards the goal of achieving financial independence.

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 29, 2013


Looks like it's gonna be a good newsbiting day! (Just glanced over Drudge; lots of boiling pots on the stove!)

Thanks, Carl, for taking Mary to the Yankee game yesterday; she had a ball! (The Matsui bobble-head now resides in a place of honor atop the living room bookself... next to my talking GWB "action figure" and personalized bottle of JD!)

Anyway... on to newsbiting!

Sunday, July 28, 2013

To a Friend Who Unfortunately Can't Directly Reply to Such Postings...


From this weekend's Wall Street Journal:

By James Taranto



Raymond Cromartie grew up an Army brat.

He looked up to his father, James Crp

"There's been so many people in the past — men and women that have died in the service of our country — that I don't think I should be sitting on my butt while they sacrifice their lives," the 23-year-old Mr. Cromartie tells me in an interview at his parents' home some 20 miles west of Gettysburg.

Trent — he goes by his middle name — received an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., and entered in 2010.

A year later, a female cadet charged him with sex crimes.

Today his aspiration to serve is in jeopardy even though a court-martial acquitted him.

His story illustrates both the human toll and the cost to the country of the current moral panic over sexual assault in the military.

Mr. Cromartie learned he was a suspect late in the afternoon on July 20, 2011 — the day after he finished his field training exercise, a grueling three-day combat simulation in 90-degree summer heat.

His company commander told him to report immediately to the campus military police station.

Weakened and hungry — he was still recovering from the exertion and sleep deprivation, and he hadn't eaten dinner — he was subjected to a 6½-hour interrogation.

* OK...

* NOTE - IF THIS "STILL RECOVERING FROM EXERTION AND SLEEP DEPRIVATION, AND HE HADN'T EATEN DINNER" BIT IS SUPPOSED TO PULL ON MY HEARTSTRINGS... WELL... IT DOESN'T.

The investigator, Special Agent Craig Butler, began by telling Cromartie that he stood accused of multiple serious crimes, including sexual assault and forcible sodomy, but withheld details of the allegations.

* OK...

* AGAIN... SOUNDS LIKE ORDINARY POLICE INVESTIGATORY/INTERIOGATION PROCEDURE - SHAKE THE TREE AND SEE WHAT FALLS.

"I was extremely confused," Mr. Cromartie recalls. "My mind started going a mile a minute. I was trying to figure out where it could have even come from." Amid his discomposure, he signed a waiver of his right to counsel.

* HE'S A BIG BOY, RIGHT? ACCEPTED TO WEST POINT?

* AGAIN... SO FAR... I'M NOT READING ANYTHING THAT SHAKES ME UP, THAT I OBJECT TO.

(*SHRUG*)

The alleged attack turned out to have occurred during an academy-sponsored ski trip to Mont-Tremblant, Quebec, in January 2011. The 180 cadets on the trip had been told they were permitted to drink, but only if they were over 21 (Quebec's drinking age is 18) and only in public places like bars and restaurants. Both those limits were widely flouted.

* AGAIN... CROMARTIE IS A BIG BOY... A LEGAL ADULT... HE KNEW THE RISKS OF DISOBEYING.

(*SHRUG*)

The accuser would later describe the trip as "a bad parody of 'American Pie,'" the raunchy 1999 high-school comedy. "People were hanging out balconies and hanging around drunk all the time," she testified. "People were also kissing and having sex in almost every room."

* SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD TIME WAS HAD BY ALL! (THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A BIT MORE ABOUT THIS "ACADEMY SPONSORSHIP" AND HOW THAT WORKS...)

Mr. Cromartie calls that an overstatement — "I wouldn't say it was a huge sex-fest" — but he agrees there was scant supervision and widespread drinking at the hotel, including by him. He also acknowledges a sexual "hookup" with the accuser, which occurred in the hotel bedroom she shared with three other female cadets. But while her account and his agree on some of the physical details, he denies her claim that he forced himself on her.

* SO... SHE SAYS, HE SAYS. EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL OR OTHERWISE?

Although the accuser waited half a year to file charges...

* BUZZ...!

...on the night of the incident she did phone Second Lt. Scott Wright, a young Army officer she described as a family friend. After hearing her version of events, Lt. Wright assumed the role of white knight. He demanded that she file a formal complaint. She demurred, so the next day, over her objection, he alerted the academy. "What that bastard did to you is vile and unforgivable," he texted her. "You can't let this go. I did what I had to do; what I knew in my heart to be right."

* WAS "THE ACCUSER" DRUNK - OR STONED - WHEN SHE CALLED WRIGHT? (DOES SHE ADMIT BEING DRUNK OR STONED... DOES SHE DENY IT... WAS SHE ASKED?)

* WHAT EXACTLY DID WRIGHT "NOTIFY THE ACADEMY" OF EXCEPT HERESAY? WHY DIDN'T HE CALL THE HOTEL DIRECTLY... REPORT THE ALLEGED INCIDENT TO HOTEL SECURITY... AT THE SAME TIME CALL THE LOCAL POLICE?

The officer in charge of the trip, Maj. Jonathan Bodenhamer, summoned the accuser to his hotel room.

* OK. SO... WRIGHT'S CALL TO THE ACADEMY LED TO AN IMMEDIATE (SAME DAY) DIRECT RESPONSE BY THIS MAJ. BODENHAMER.

"I brought her in thinking she had been raped," he testified. What she told him sounded more like regret than rape: "I was very careful to look out for those words and triggers and descriptions of events that would lead me to believe that an assault was being reported. She didn't say he forced her, that she said 'no' or 'stop,' or that she couldn't get away." He concluded it was a false alarm.

* AND...??? WERE EITHER "THE ACCUSER" OR CROMARTIE DISCIPLINED FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT... CONDUCT UNBECOMING... FOR VIOLATING ORDERS? (AGAIN... DID EITHER "THE ACCUSER," CROMARTIE, OR BOTH ADMIT TO ACTING AGAINST ORDERS?)

The investigation wrapped up in April 2012, 15 months after the trip. The investigating officer, Lt. Col. Mark Visger, sent a memo to Brig. Gen. Theodore Martin, then commandant of cadets.

"I feel that it is my duty to inform you that a trial will be difficult and there are significant challenges to proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Col. Visger wrote.

But he had it both ways, also finding "reasonable grounds to support the charges and proceed to general court-martial."

* HUH...???

After multiple delays, the trial began in October 2012.

* OK... WHATEVER... CONTINUING...

If anything, Col. Visger understated the threadbareness of the prosecution case.

Since there were no eyewitnesses to the sexual activity, it was she-said/he-said. Because the accuser failed to report the incident immediately, there was no physical evidence.

* AND YET... THERE WAS A TRIAL... AN ARREST, A CHARGE, AND A TRIAL.

And the accuser's testimony diverged from that of other witnesses.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Most notably, she testified that she was a virgin at the time and that the alleged attack caused her to bleed profusely. "There were four or five streaks . . . 24 inches wide, 6 inches deep blood streaks along the side of [the] bed, which had white sheets," she testified. Her roommates "were grossed out by it and wondered whose blood it was," the accuser added. "I volunteered to sleep on that bed the next night." All three roommates testified that they never saw any blood and that no such discussion of sleeping arrangements occurred.

(*EXHALE*)

Mr. Cromartie was acquitted of all the accuser's charges.

A few days later, Cromartie sent a brief "no-hard-feelings" email to now First Lt. Wright, who responded with a long, effusive apology. Lt. Wright wrote that after learning the facts of the case, "I was shocked and appalled. I felt as though I had been used and manipulated." When he heard of the acquittal, "I thanked God that I didn't play a part in sending an innocent man to prison."

But Mr. Cromartie's ordeal was not over. He had fallen into a perjury trap — ironically, as a consequence of his conscientiousness.

* OK... GO ON...

Agent Butler testified that when he interviewed Mr. Cromartie, he had already taken the accuser's statement and "preloaded some of the questions" for the accused. One point on which the accounts differed was the pair's location when he touched her genitals. He said it happened only in her bedroom; she cited multiple places in both of their suites, which were adjacent. As Mr. Cromartie explains it to me, he became confused by questions about his touching her while they were in particular spots and at one point answered: "I didn't finger her." That flat denial made it into his signed attestation, which was typed by Agent Butler and is the only record of the interrogation.

* OK... I'M STILL READING...

Two days after that interview, Mr. Cromartie returned and told a different agent he wanted to amend his statement. This time he acknowledged the act he'd ended up denying earlier.

* OK... NOT QUITE SURE WHAT TO THINK... NOT A TECHNICAL EXPERT IN CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE... CONTINUING TO READ...

The court-martial panel found him guilty of making a false official statement — a statement that was provably untrue only because Mr. Cromartie had taken the trouble to set the record straight.

* AGAIN... NOT CLAIMING TO BE A TECHNICAL EXPERT... BUT I WOULD THINK IF CROMARTIE VOLUNTARILY AND PROACTIVELY REVISED HIS OWN INITIAL STATEMENT AND NEVER LIED UNDER ACTUAL OATH BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY...

(*SHRUG*)

The panel could have sentenced him to separation from the academy, analogous to expulsion from a civilian college. Instead it chose a milder punishment: a reprimand and 30 days' restriction to quarters, the Army equivalent of house arrest.

* AND FRANKLY I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS! CROMARTIE WAS DUMB TO WAVE HIS RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY IN THE FIRST PLACE! THIS "SLAP ON THE WRIST" SEEMS TO ME TO BE JUST PUNISHMENT ALONG THE LINES CROMARTIE DESERVED.

But late last month he was separated anyway, through an administrative action recommended by the West Point superintendent, Lt. Gen. David Huntoon.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* THIS DESERVES EXPLANATION... AND FRANKLY JUSTIFICATION.

Mr. Cromartie's civilian lawyer, Bill Cassara, has appealed the conviction to the Army Judge Advocate General's office. He tells me he's confident that West Point will readmit his client if the appeal succeeds. It argues that Mr. Cromartie's decision to amend his statement demonstrates that he had no intent to deceive, one of four elements that must be proven to convict a serviceman of a false official statement.

* SOUNDS REASONABLE...

The appeal also alleges that the conviction is tainted by both political pressure and favoritism toward the accuser, or the appearance thereof. The legal term is unlawful command influence, or UCI.

* YES... WHAT EXACTLY DID HAPPEN TO OUR "VIRGIN ACCUSER?"

The politics of sexual assault weigh heavily on West Point owing to a lawsuit by a former cadet who alleges an upperclassman raped her. In April 2012, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on CNN: "We've got to train commanders to understand that when these complaints are brought, they've got to do their damnedest to see that these people are brought to justice." Less than a month passed before Gen. Huntoon referred Mr. Cromartie's case for a general court-martial. (More recently, a similar statement by President Obama has raised military-wide concerns about UCI. Prejudicial comments by members of Congress are no less irresponsible but do not constitute UCI, as lawmakers are not in the chain of command.)

* THE PROBLEM IS THAT FAR TOO MANY "IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND" - AND I'M TALKING UNIFORMED MILITARY - ARE FAR LESS HONORABLE THAN ONE WOULD HOPE FOR.

In addition, in October 2011 the accuser's father sent an inflammatory three-page handwritten letter to the commandant, Gen. Martin. The father asserted that his daughter had been "raped" and repeatedly referred to Mr. Cromartie as a "rapist." (This was not in fact a rape case; even the accuser said the sexual activity stopped well short of intercourse.) The letter began "Dear Ted." The father and Gen. Martin were classmates at the academy 30 years ago  and West Point classes are famously tightknit.

* WHOA!

Perhaps the clearest indication of UCI came in April 2012, when the defense counsel asked Maj. Jeffrey Pickler, Mr. Cromartie's company tactical officer, to write a letter attesting to the cadet's good character. Maj. Pickler agreed, then sought advice from his superior, Lt. Col. John Vermeesch, who discouraged him from writing the letter. Maj. Pickler testified that Col. Vermeesch prefaced his recommendation with a pre-emptive denial: "Just to be clear, this is not UCI."

(*SNORT*)

Although Maj. Pickler didn't write the letter...

* WHY NOT? (FEAR OF RETALIATION OR PRINCIPLE? BUT... HARD TO BELIEVE PRINCIPLE WHEN PICKLER INITIALLY AGREED...)

...he testified as a defense witness and spoke glowingly of Mr. Cromartie: "He strikes me as the kind of cadet who has worked incredibly hard to get here, he is extremely mature compared to his peers and classmates, he is hard working, and [he] possesses incredible work ethic." That's what the Army is losing if it allows his separation to stand.

* SO... AGAIN... WHY DIDN'T PICKLER WRITE THE LETTER...???

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

After the court-martial panel read its verdict, Mr. Cromartie took the stand in the proceeding's sentencing phase to show remorse for the misstatement: "I should have reviewed my statement thoroughly. I just skimmed it and it was my fault," he testified. "I should have asked for a lawyer."

If that is the most important lesson a young man can learn at West Point, it is an indictment of both the academy's leadership and the country's.

* FOLKS... AGAIN... I FEAR THAT LARGE SEGMENTS OF OUR MILITARY INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED AND POLITICIZED. THE FACT THAT "THE GOOD GUYS" WILL SO RARELY SPEAK OUT SHOULD TELL YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT WHETHER MY FEARS ARE JUSTIFIED OR NOT.

* REMEMBER BENGHAZI...