Tom is right as rain. Michael is suffering from one of the virulent strains of ‘Potomacitis’ prevalent in that town. In the Civil War they used to call them camp diseases mostly effecting new recruits. Some of the overt symptoms are an infatuation with D.C.’s social whirl, rubbing elbows with the self satisfied and self-proclaimed elite, and forgetting where your roots are. I am sure she will all of a sudden discover a widely covered by the media antidote prior to the November elections.

The First Lady's role is symbolic. Knock the symbolism freely, but if there is fault, it lies with those cats who have direct responsibility for these issues ... and that's not her. You're in the wrong jurisdiction, wrong zip code, wrong side of the River. If there is fault elsewhere than Virginia, take a look at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue where the laws are made, spending authorized, moneys appropriated, and oversight done.

And I'll bet a hat that the people First Lady meets with are largely selected by DOD, flag wives who want to hang out with her. Again, the fix lies with those people charged by law and regulation with advising the President on military matters.

If this is a big deal, it needs to be a big deal for Mullen, Cartwright, and Gates.

It's a good call, but it sure sounds like a staff screwup, and not the First Lady's staff.

Mr. Ricks - I'm curious, did you know Michelle Obama visited the Pentagon today? Is your report in response to her visit and did you not realize?

According to Fort Bragg's newspaper the Paraglide, the first trip Mrs. Obama made outside the White House was to Fort Bragg to meet with families in March 2009. Since then she's been to Fort Hood, Norfolk, Eglin and other locations in little over one year. That sends a pretty strong message about her support of the military and our families. But that's really neither here nor there because, as Tom knows, the First Lady has little control over things like budget for military spouse programs. So why pick on the First Lady when the real blame falls squarely on elected representatives and political appointees, as well as some of our uniformed leadership, who over the last 10 years have allowed things like the scandle at Walter Reed to go unabated until exposed by the news media. But you know all this Tom, so why take a swipe at the First Lady?

and pulling back from our hundreds of overseas bases, including the semi-vacation spots like the Azores.

Put the "defense" back in DOD, and quit being so Wilsonian.

I would hope she is using heritage strains. But knowing the US, they are probably Monsanto terminator seeds.

This is just plain abusive - is she for cancer if she doesn't have a full time adviser about cancer? World hunger? How about child abuse? This kind of garbage belongs in Fox 'News,' not FP. Want the shoe on the other foot? This author, Tom Ricks, is obviously in favor of abusing children, since he hasn't initiated a huge a campaign against it.

Tom--

I think this is the most disgusting post in the history of this pentagon Info Ops web site. I wonder which war mongrel flag officer gave the order to Mr. Ricks to publish this disgusting attack aginst Mrs. Obama.

You want to help military families Mr. Ricks? Give them all of your money.

Tom--
I'm a big fan and daily reader, but this one is frankly loaded with cheap shots and your facts are wrong. First, full disclosure, I sit on the DNC's Veterans and Military Families Council, so I am not a casual observer.
A few corrections for the record:
1) Your wrong re Matt Flavin. Matt heads the White House’s Office of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy (ie, Veterans issues only). He does not have Military Families in his portfolio. Since military families fall under the DoD, military families policy is overseen by the NSC. In particular the portfolio belongs to Mike Harasimowicz – he’s a USAF Colonel serving in the Defense Directorate. AND, maybe most importantly, this is new to this administration. No previous administration had military families as a policy portfolio within the NSC staff. So again, your “facts” are wrong. Not to sound trite, but a little fact-checking by a journalist of your caliber would have yielded this info.
2) You know as well as anyone that the First Lady’s office has no statutory authority to “monitor implementation of policies and executions of budgets.” That is a naïve claim at best. That is why the military families policy portfolio again sits with the NSC (where it LEGALLY belongs). The causal link in your argument that the First Lady is responsible for the Pentagon's personnel office is wildly off-base. Again, you know better than most that the First Lady has no authority over the Pentagon’s personnel office.
3) Putting statutory authority aside, the First Lady and Dr. Biden have used their ultra-high public visibility to lead the effort on highlighting the problems and issues affecting military families. Did you see the video they released two days ago regarding Month of the Military Child? http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/07/month-military-child. You make no mention of it?
You’re attacking the First Lady for “policy oversight” which she cannot legally do, yet you give her no credit for the massive PR campaign she has led by leveraging the power of her public profile.
4) Since the inauguration (by my count) the First Lady has visited: the Pentagon (TODAY!), Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Naval Station Norfolk, Bolling Air Force Base, Eglin Air Force Base, and Walter Reed. The primary purpose of almost everyone of these visits has been to talk about the issues affecting military families. Where do you get the line “when Michelle Obama does engage, she seems to hang with generals' wives at officers' clubs, which indicates a certain tone deafness.” Again, that is blatant nonsense beneath someone of your journalistic caliber. I wonder who is whispering in your ear? Does this look like hanging out with generals wives at the officer’s club ?? http://news14.com/charlotte-news-104-content/local_news/sandhills/606200/first-lady-visits-with-troops--families-in-n-c-/

You should probably retract this piece or at least issue a correction to all of the mistakes in it.
Regards,
Rob Diamond

"Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Give 'em hell, Tom.

¨Here's an interesting question: How many soldiers' wives committed suicide last year? ¨

What does this have do with Mrs. Obama?

Mr . Tom Ricks must really deeply hate and despise Michelle Obama. There is no other reason for him to go so bloodthirsty against her. And he does it while hiding behind military families.

Those of you who take umbrage at Tom on this issue protest way too much. Implying the First Lady doesn’t have control or influence over her schedule and priorities is pure nonsense. If service families were important to her she would make the time. I am not some crazed right wing Republican, I supported her husband last year with both money and my solitary vote. But fair is fair, she made it an issue in the campaign and should have the sense to act on it unless it was just a cheap political gimmick to protect their right flank.

Mr. Ricks,

You make a good overall point, albeit in an inflammatory way (you have to admit it's a little bit of an overstatement to say that Mrs. Obama has complete control over policy-making regarding military families). However, I've got to say: why do you keep referring to "soldiers' wives"? Last I checked, women make up approximately twenty percent of the armed forces. Do their families and spouses not deserve support as well?

"Here's an interesting question: How many soldiers' wives committed suicide last year?"

That's a great question, I'd love to see an answer to that. Something else to think about: what is the Pentagon doing to support the servicewomen who are raped and sexually assaulted or harassed by their brother soldiers? I'm sure you've seen the numbers (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/) and those are just the ones who are brave enough to report it. Would love to see a column from you on that sometime.

three points

1 - as a person who has lived in the other English speaking democracies where you don't hear squat from 'first spouses' this American obsession with the first lady seems quite bizarre - I'll assume it has something to do with the puritan/fear of sex nexus in the American psyche and leave it at that.

2 - if she has to be told or encouraged to do what should be obvious that probably means she really doesn't give a shit or is ideologically predisposed to marginalize such things, in which case any effort she exerted now would be mere tokenism and might do more harm than good.

3 - as a proud anti-Obamian I'd say her attitude is perfectly emblematic of the left wing academic culture that spawned the royal couple - the tenured intelligentsia of this country does not care for the study or practice of war and tends to view anyone who does display an interest or respect for things military as not fully evolved. Obama does a reasonably good job with his public persona of covering up his true nature [although I think it's clearly revealed in his flawed approach to foreign policy] but the First Lady apparently does not share a similar need to dissemble her disdain.

There seems to be less here than meets the eye. Worthy of scrutiny perhaps, but it smells a bit of the journalistic equivalent of a police riot.

If she did absolutely nothing for military spouses, I doubt it would be noteworthy. She does something - a lot more than any First Ladies in recent memory - and Tom says not enough.

OK. Judgment call. Editorial privilege. But on this one I respectfully disagree: contrary information posted here gives evidence that you're wrong, Tom,. Suggest you state what the standard is and where it comes from before you say it's not being met. .

Sorry I am so late to this discussion but unlike you, Mr. Ricks I felt an obligation to do a little research first. After several hours of research the only statements concerning military families I could find attributed to Barbara Bush were brief comments at political rallies thanking military families for their support. I can find no remarks, actions or involvement of any substance by Barbara Bush concerning the serious issues facing our military and their families but several dozen remarks by her in support of the war(s). This despite the obvious observation that it was her husband who started both illegal wars. Also no comment by you on the subject of First Lady involvement in military family issues over 8 years in the Washington Post. So now you decide that this First Lady should have a role in this area somehow putting her in a policy execution and budget oversight role at the Pentagon personnel office. Really!!! The First Lady directing an office in the Pentagon. Seriously were you able to keep a straight face as you wrote that line? Also did you speak with the folks at the Blue Stars Families organization or attend the reception at GWU on last Veterans Day where Mrs Obama and Mrs Biden welcomed several hundred serving family members and spoke to them at length and personally (Mrs Biden's son was serving in Iraq at that time) about their concerns. Oh and the arrogance of the cheap shot about Princeton from a Yalie...please have you no shame at all? I think it is a sure sign of just how cheap a piece of "FOX News journalism" this little nugget was when your most pointed defense of it was that you took an equally cheap pop at the governor of Virginia. And finally you ask a serious but sexist question at the end of your article that seems to serve as a challenge and perhaps an indictment, as if Mrs. Obama should somehow know the answer to the question of how many "soldiers wives" (how about how many spouses?) have committed suicide last year. How about you ask that question of one of your very close friends over at the Pentagon. You know those guys with all the medals and brass running around over in that five sided building who are actually charged with the responsibility of taking care of the service men and woman who we repeatedly send into harms way. Don't you think you should ask them or are you afraid they might get upset with you and not whisper little nuggets in your ear so you can make your living. I have a question for you. Are you getting paid by the page count?

Pretty low blow. Was this a slow news day or what? A cheap shot by a tired Pentagon hack, there is much real news to write about but I guess Ricks decided to make some up.

Mrs. Obama is a strong supporter of the military and especially military families. Just like President Obama, Mrs. Obama keeps much of her interaction with the troops and families out of public view. Talk to the BSF folks or numerous other groups.

What sort of person would think that the President' wife should have a full-time aide for military family issues? Is she also Sec. of Defense? What kind of person thinks that military families suffer more than most, since they earn twice as much as comparable Americans, and have almost free health care?

I have to agree with Tom on this one. True, the First Lady does not make or pass legislation, but she does have the power to influence those who do. Is she meeting with the HASC/SASC? It is not just the cancellation of the tuition assistance, it goes further, the decades old rule of only shipping one vehicle overseas, the horrible pay raise under the current congress/administration.
@ RubberDuckey...you have to look at both ends of "Pennsylvania Avenue where the laws are made, spending authorized, moneys appropriated, and oversight done." In case you forgot your 8th grade civics classes, the executive branch must sign into law anything passed by the congress (we can leave out the 2/3rd override stuff out), and yes, it is the POTUS who submits these budgets to congress.
Going out, making AFN commercials, and gettting your media photo shoots in at bases is one thing, it another to roll up you r sleaves and accomplish something.

Tom,

I apprecaite you drawing attention to the important issue of suicides by the spouses of our service members, but feel your unfair attack on the First Lady takes away from this important issue.

Admiral Mike Mullen's wife actually drew attention to this issue back in January, calling on the military start to track these numbers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/14/admirals_wife_warns_of_spousal_suicide_risk/

“I was stunned when I was told there are too many to track,’’ Mullen said.

As a veteran of the Iraq war, I appreciate the stress that our military is under and am glad that you and others want to draw attention to the families of those serving. The military does have the resources and time to track these numbers and should begin...not only to provide these numbers up to leaders such as the First Lady, but to get them in the hands of the mental health experts needed to help.

Let's not forget that Mrs. Obama has worked to draw attention military families challenges and even was a catalyst to the efforts of an amazing group, Blue Star Families.

Tom, while I appreciate your shining a light on this issue, don't take away from your usually excellent reporting by taking a cheap shot at someone dedicated to help.

Sincerely,

Jon

Mr. Ricks, you know very well this is not a "Story." What "Facts" you may have, they have been twisted to fit an agenda aimed at destroying Mrs. Obama´s credibility with military families.

--She campaigned as someone who would help military families.

Mrs Obama has helped military families. She has chosen to do it in her own way. If she issued press releases and had photo ops I suspect your "story" would be that she is exploiting military families. Again I suggest you take up journalism again and make a few phone calls. Start with Blue Star Families and let them lead you to other people and situations.

--When the Pentagon cancelled the program to help military spouses pay tuition, which outraged many of those spouses, she was nowhere to be found.

This is what is so infuriating about your attack on the First Lady. You know this story as well as anyone and yet you choose to "Fox News" this issue.
Here are the facts:
"The Pentagon was overwhelmed by the number of applicants, which had grown from an average of about 10,000 a month to 70,000 in January alone. Money for the Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts program, known as MyCAA, was rapidly running out. Rather than ask Congress for more cash, Pentagon officials decided to close the program to new applicants and stop payments to those already enrolled.
Less than a month after the program was “paused,” the money started flowing again. However, the program still isn’t accepting new applicants. The Pentagon said it’s reviewing long-term plans for the program.
“This is one of those cases where we had a program that ramped up slowly and then it exploded in popularity,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee last week.
Gates said the Pentagon had budgeted $61 million for the program in the current fiscal year and had requested $65 million in the next fiscal year. While he expects the program to resume, it eventually could end up costing $1 billion to $2 billion, he said."

So if I understand you correctly you would have the First Lady dive into a difficult personnel issue and tell Secretary Gates how to deal with a very difficult budgetary issue? And if she did, what about anything you have ever written would lead me to believe that you would not be huffing and snuffing about the arrogance of her involving herself in difficult military affairs. Whose water are you carrying here?

--She has a staff. Yet she doesn't have a full-time aide for an issue she chose to make hers.

Again the double standard and unfairness of this part of your attack is aggravated by the fact that you know better and choose to put a negative spin on a fact of life.
Congress severely restricts the size of the Executive Office of The President (EOP) through severe budgetary restrictions. Every single position in EOP is scrutinized and contended for among the myriad responsibilities and requirements of the executive branch, Again you might want to exercise your journalistic chops a little and come up with the name of the previous administrations full time aide for military families on Mrs Bush's staff (or anywhere in EOP for that matter)

You ought to go back to journalism where some folks seem to think you had some talent. This stuff you are peddling here is Bush league propaganda.
Hey are you trying to become a stringer for Fox?