THIS JUST IN! WORST AGING POLITICIANS!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

DOING OUR PART TO KEEP ALIVE A GRAND TRADITION, WE OFFER 10 POLITICIANS WHO ARE AGING BADLY.


1) BARRY O.  HE MAY BE D.C.'S CELEBRITY IN CHIEF STILL BUT THE SALT AND PEPPER HAIR DOESN'T LOOK DISTINGUISHED ON A MAN WHO SEEMS TO BE SUFFERING FROM AN EATING DISORDER.  BARRY O MIGHT BECOME THE FIRST MAN TO LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE WEIGHING LESS THAN HE DID WHEN HE WENT IN.  AND ALL THAT STARVATION MAY EXPLAIN THE LINES AROUND THE LIPS THAT GET DEEPER AND DEEPER AND SEEM TO SUGGEST HE'S BEEN SUCKING ON SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A CIGARETTE.  A DANDY DOESN'T AGE WELL.  OUR SUGGESTION: PUT ON 15 POUNDS BETWEEN NOW AND THE DNC CONVENTION, STOP TRYING TO DRESS FOR THE COVER OF G.Q. AND MORE FOR MAIN STREET AMERICA.  AND FOR HIM TO CLICK HIS HEELS THREE TIMES AND SAY, "I AM A REAL MAN.  I AM A REAL MAN.  I AM A REAL MAN."

2) NANCY PELOSI.  AT THIS POINT, SHE'S LIKE KATHERINE HELMOND IN THE FILM BRAZIL.  AND YOU START TO WONDER IF THOSE SEA LIONS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREN'T ALL FEEDING OFF LARGE CHUNKS OF HER FLESH SHE'S HAD SURGICALLY REMOVED.  PEOPLE MOCK CHER BUT WHATEVER WORK CHER'S HAD DONE, SHE STILL LOOKS HUMAN.  THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR PELOSI.  OUR SUGGESTION: STOP THE PLASTIC SURGERY.  THAT'S IT.  THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE HER LOOK NORMAL -- OR HUMAN -- EVER AGAIN.  WE WILL GIVE HER THIS TIP, WHEN THOSE FACE LIFTS PINCH ONE SIDE OF THE FACE MAKING ONE EYE SMALLER, YOU'RE FLIPPING YOUR PART TO THE OTHER SIDE TO ALLOW YOUR HAIR TO HANG OVER THE SMALLER EYE ISN'T FOOLING ANYONE.

3)  JESSE JACKSON JR.  KARMA CAN BITE YOU IN THE BUTT.  SO, JUNIOR, WHEN YOU WENT OFF ON YOUR FATHER PUBLICLY IN 2008 TO SUCKLE AT THE GROIN OF BARRY O, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY WAS COMING.  AND, BOY, HAS IT.  JUNIOR'S RUN TO THE MAYO CLINIC.  AND MORE AND MORE, THE WHISPER IS THAT JUNIOR'S ABOUT TO BE INDICTED AND THAT PART OF THIS 'REHAB' IS TO PREPARE A DEFENSE AKIN TO 'I WAS A VICTIM OF MY SICKNESS WHEN I BROKE THE LAW BY AGREEING TO BUY MY WAY INTO BARRY O'S OLD SENATE SEAT.'  JUNIOR USED TO BE A BIG BONED FELLOW, YOU MAY REMEMBER.  DIDN'T HAVE THE WILL POWER (MAYBE THE DEFENSE CAN USE THAT IN COURT!) TO TAKE IT OFF SO HE HAD SURGERY.  NOW THE VAINEST JACKSON MAY LEARN THERE ARE MANY WORSE THINGS THAN BEING FAT -- FOR EXAMPLE, WEARING AN ORANGE JUMP SUIT EVERY DAY FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

At the start of the week, an international hotel chain announced they were coming to Iraq. The press release opened:

 

 

Hilton Worldwide today announced expansion plans in Iraqi Kurdistan, Northern Iraq, with the signing of a management agreement with the Mihtab Group to develop the first Hilton Hotels & Resorts property in the rapidly growing city of Erbil, Iraq.

The 300-room Hilton Erbil Hotel & Spa, which is expected to open in 2016, will be the second Hilton Worldwide property in Erbil following the 2011 announcement to develop a DoubleTree Suites by Hilton in the city.

Hilton Erbil Hotel & Spa will be set in extensive, landscaped grounds in an upscale residential and commercial district just North of Erbil, an area famous for its picturesque, mountainous landscape as well as its close proximity to the city's main access road. These key location benefits are attracting many new businesses to the area, including a number of foreign embassies planned within the next two years.

 

 

The KRG is not hurting for hotels. Already it has a ton including the Erbil Tower Hotel, Divan Erbil, Van Royal Hotel, Erbil Rotana (where this year's Miss Kurdistan competition was held), Yadi Hotel, Abu-Sana Hotel, etc. The KRG has 22 operating, internationally recognized hotels with more being built. Baghdad? Five operating and internationally recognized hotels -- including the Palestine International Hotel (where reporters stayed and where the US military infamously fired upon). No big construction going on. No big foreign investment rushing into the capitol. But the KRG? Hilton Worldwide becomes the latest to want to do business.

 

 

As we've noted repeatedly, Nouri's crazy scares them off. Nouri's tirades against Turkey, all the accusations and smears add in to the view of him as unhinged. His attacks on ExxonMobil and Chevron and so many others and his inability, as prime minister, to bring cohesion to Iraq, to provide real leadership to the region, hurts the country and harms the way others view the section of Iraq he has jurisdiction over. (The KRG -- Kurdistan Regional Government -- three northern provinces -- is semi-autonomous.)

 

 

After all this time, an argument could be made that Baghdad 'security' -- such as it is -- is as good as it's going to get and that the business community has taken note of that. Making that argument requires acknowleging how very little Nouri al-Maliki has accomplished in his six years as prime minister. Acknowledging that requires confronting how little Nouri has achieved as prime minister and how much the people continue to suffer.

 

 

Ahmed Hussein (Al Mada) reports that along with the continued lack of electritiy, you can add to that the scarcity of potable water in Baghdad -- specifically east Baghdad and South Baghdad. The situation has gotten so bad that Parliament will be questioning the governor of the province and the secretary of the city of Baghdad. The newspaper notes that, July 7th, officials pleaded "technical problems." That was 20 days ago.

The delivery of basic goods and services is a political issue and the potable water appears to have entered the same crisis level the political stalemate has. Al Mada reports on Ayad Allawi's statements yesterday. Allawi is the head of Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the elections, Nouri's State of Law came in second). Allawi notes that there is no need for a Reform Committee or for people to think up or adopt new reforms. The answer is to return to the Erbil Agreement which was already agreed upon.

 

Following the March 2010 elections, Political Stalemate I lasted for a little over eight months and this was the period where Nouri refused to allow things to move forward because he wanted a second term as prime minister; however, State of Law's showing didn't allow him -- per the law -- to be made prime minister-designate and given 30 days to assmble a Cabinet. So he pouted and threw his tantrum and the White House nursed him and refused to pull him off Barack's nipple. With the White House backing, Nouri was able to bring things in Iraq to a complete standstill. The White House then brokered the Erbil Agreement which was the way around the Constitution (it was extra-Constitutional, not unconstitutional) for Nouri to get his way.

 

That's not how the US government presented it. The political blocs were told to figure out what they wanted and this items were written into the agreement with the understanding that, in exchange for those, Nouri would get a second term. The agreement is a binding contract and was signed off on by all parties. Plus the US government assured the political blocs that the US was backing this agreement. That was November 2010. The next day, Parliament finally held a real session and Nouri was named prime minister-designate. When he became prime minister, he trashed the agreement and, since summer 2011, Moqtada al-Sadr, the Kurds and Iraqiya have been calling for him to return to the Erbil Agreement.

 

He has refused.

 

That's what the current political stalemate is about. He is not only doing a power-grab, he is refusing to honor the contract he signed onto and used to get a second term as prime minister. He has further alarmed rival politicians by going back on his 'pledge' not to seek a third term.

 

So Allawi is calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. He sees Nouri's silly Reform Commission as a waste of time -- which it is. Why do they need weeks of meetings to figure out what to do?

 

Have we forgotten the months of meetings for the national conference that then fell apart as Nouri wanted it to? Before that fell apart in April, there had been months of meetings about this issue. So the Reform Commission shouldn't need a ton of meetings to figure out what to do.

 

But the reality is it exists solely to buy more time for Nouri. This is what he always does, stall, stall and stall. And hope people either get tired of waiting or just forget.

 

Due to backing from the Bush White House and then the Barack White House, this strategy has been highly effective for Nouri personally.

 

It's helped tear the country of Iraq further apart but, for Nouri, it's all about what Nouri al-Maliki wants. Further proof is in reporting today by Rod Nordland (New York Times) about 15 Baquba officials quitting their jobs because they state the government has failed to protect them from al Qaeda. Threat have made them fear for the safety of their families. This lack of security despite all the US tax dollars wasted in training Iraq's security forces.

 

"Status of Fixcal Years 2011-2012 Iraq Security Forces Fund (SIGIR 12-018)" [PDF format warning, click here] was released today by the Office of the Special Inspector General on Iraq Reconstruction and is a letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillar Clinton which notes the money given (wasted) by US taxpayers for Iraq's security forces to be trained: "To date, Congress has appropriated $20.54 billion in ISFF. This includes $1.50 billion Congress appropriated in April 2011 for use in fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012."

 

 

Over $20.54 billion US tax dollars sent out of the US to pay for the training of Iraq's security forces. You learn about how freely the government spent the taxpayer money. So freely, that they gave more than even they thought could be spent which is why: "Congress specified the period of time each ISFF appropriation could be used. In each case, Congress made the funds available for periods between 12 and 19 months, during which time funds would have to be obligated. Any funds not obligated with their designated period of availability would be considered expired and, therefore, not available for new obligations."

Nancy Pelosi kept using the "blank check" metaphor even after many of us thought the then-Speaker sounded ancient and ourselves were referring to it as the administration using Congress as its own personal ATM. But Pelosi ends up right and we (including me) end up wrong because it was indeed a blank check. And it was blank check under Bush and a blank check under Barack.

 

While Americans domestically struggled with historic levels of unemployment, with losing their houses and so much more, the Congress and the White House were so eager to give Iraq billions for 'security forces' that they realized they might be giving more than was needed so they tacked on that if the funds were not "obligated" within X number of months, the US would get them back.

 

And some may wrongly think that means, "Well, Iraq didn't spend X so we're getting that back. Yea!" Wrong. "Spent" is not "obligated."


 

"Obligated" means they say it will be spent on, for example, "forensic training."


 

Will be. Not has been spent.


 

This is made clear in the letter: "However, un-obligated funds can be used for up to five years after they expire to pay for authorized increases to existing obligations made from the same appropriation. Any un-obligated funds remaining after the five-year period must be returned to the U.S. Treasury."

 

So the White House and the Congress (then Democratically controlled, both houses) made the decision not only to give Iraq more money than was needed, they also said, "Hey, screw the American taxpayers and their needs, if you can't spend this money in the Fiscal Year, just say you will someday spend it on something and we'll let you have it for up to five years, interest free."

 

$20.54 billion US tax dollars wasted.

 

Wasted?

 

What do you see in Iraq in terms of security that justifies spending 20 billion dollars -- $20,000,000,000?

 

The CIA estimates the Iraqi population to be 31.1 million. (Iraq hasn't had a census since the 90s.) When the US government refers to Iraq's "security forces," they are only speaking of the number employed by the central government out of Baghdad. So all of this money has just spent on the national forces. In a country with an estimate population of 30 million, how many security forces are there?

 

By September 2007, according to Brookings, they had 359,700. In the same month, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post noted that then-top US commander in Iraq Gen David Petraeus was using a higher figure of 445,000 at that same time and that this "suggest[s] he was including every person employed by the ministries in an effort to promote the size and capability of security forces that many experts say are plagued by absenteeism, attrition and sectarianism." Last December 7th, Luis Martinez (ABC News) reported US Lt Gen Frank Helmick had stated in the US military's "last briefing from Iraq" that Iraq's security forces number 700,000.

 

 

30 million population, nearly a million police officers. Iraq is not Malaysia. It's an oil rich country generating billions each year. How very fortunate for the US-installed puppet Nouri that these forces he's put under his own command -- not really how the Iraqi Constitution set it out -- were trained on the US tax payer dollar.

 

Please grasp that this figure doesn't include the $850 million that the US State Dept requested (and received) for Fiscal Year 2012 to, yes, train Iraq's security forces. And the 'good' news on that money? The letter explains that, after allocation, "the funds will be deposited into an Iraq FMF account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where the GOI [Government Of Iraq] will decide how to use the funds."

 

And when you look over how that money's being allocated, you'll see that the US tax payer foots the bill for everything from night vision goggles to "training ammunition." Again, Iraq is not a struggling economy. It's not Ethiopia. It's an oil rich country that make billions every month in oil revenue.

 

But Nouri can't provide security and can't even pick up the bill for the security forces he has placed under his control. Who's safe in Iraq besides Nouri? Who's benefitted from all those billions spent on security?

 

On efforts to end -- or pretend to end -- the crisis Nouri started, Al Mada reports that the National Alliance is warning that the Reform Committee lacks "a magic wand." No one expected them to have a magic wand. People are more upset that they (a) have no teeth, (b) have no power and (c) are a for-show group. This evening, Alsumaria reported that State of Law was stating Deputy Prime Minister and Iraqiya member Saleh al-Mutlaq was supporting the Reform Commission. If true, this could be the most serious fracture Iraqiya has faced. They've written off the loss of members since the elections. This would be a high ranking member betraying them. Saleh al-Mutlaq, it should be remembered was tarred and feathered by Nouri's Justic and Accountability Commission in 2010 as a "Ba'athist." As such, he wasn't allowed to run in the elections. Iraqiya stood by him throughout that. In the second-half of December of last year, Nouri was attempting to strip al-Mutlaq of his position as a result of an interview al-Mutlaq gave CNN where he comapred Nouri to a dictator. Iraqiya stood behind him collectively and that was among the reasons he retained his office. So a defection like this -- even if he remained in Iraqiya -- would be a major turn -- and a major betrayal.

International leaders and the press betrayed Iraq and the citizens of the world by building a false case for the illegal war. Some of those international leaders never really leave the daily buzz. Take George W. Bush. PTI reports that the Dalai Lama has declared he and George W. Bush ad BFFs and, "Personally I love Bush but I have reservation on his policy towards Iraq." Personally, I was neutral on the Dalai Lama until a few years ago when he decided to let his homophobia run wild. After that, very little about the 'peaceful' Dalai Lama can surprise me -- not even his desire to be best friends with a War Criminal.

 

 

From Bush, who occupied the White House from January 2001 through January 2009. In England, the chief War Criminal was then-prime minister Tony Blair. Former British diplomat Craig Murray observes at his site, "Blair's latest attempt at rehabilitation is a discussion tomorrow at Westminister Central Hall with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the place of religion in society. A vexed question, but give that Blair believes God OK'd the invasion of Iraq and the resulting millions deaths, not one that can usefully be discussed by this charlatan." Meanwhile in England, Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports, efforts continue to hide evidence from the public about how Blair and Bush planned or 'planned' the illegal war:

 

 

The Foreign Office (FCO) is appealing against a judge's ruling that extracts of a conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush days before the invasion of Iraq must be disclosed.

It argues that revealing Blair's comments to Bush on the telephone on 12 March 2003 would present a "significant danger" to UK-US relations. It would lead to the US withholding information from Britain in the future, damaging Britain's security and diplomatic interests, the FCO says.

 

 

Those two War Criminals may not be able to lead nations into illegal war today but there are so many other of the original helpers still hungry with War Lust. The Atlantic was a big War Cheerleader back then. Today you can find John Hudson pondering, "Did Syria Receive Its Chemical Weapons from Saddam?" What a stupid War Whore. As Kirs Alenxander (Wired) notes, "No, Syria Doesn't Have Saddam's Chemical Weapons." Excerpt:

 

 

I’ve already debunked one of the rumors about Iraq’s WMD. I’m not buying this one. Here’s why.

First: Think about it for a second. Strategically and militarily, it made no sense for Saddam to transfer his weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Saddam worked on acquiring WMD for a reason: to stave off an invasion and hold on to power.

Just listen to a defeated Saddam for a second. In a post-invasion interview, Saddam admitted that he had been bluffing about his WMD. This is actually case-closed for the conspiracy theories about his weapons transfers.

But for a moment, let’s suppose that Saddam circumvented the most intrusive sanction regime the world has ever known and rebuilt his WMD programs after inspectors (and Israeli jets) destroyed them. His reasoning would have been deterrence — as Thomas Schelling put it, Saddam would have given his enemies a “threat that leaves something to chance.” That’s why the Assad regime threatens on and off to use WMD: It keeps the foreign hordes at bay. So why, with U.S. massing forces on his border, would Saddam give up the one thing he had to raise the cost of invading to the Americans?

 

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "At least 376 violent deaths in Iraq so far this mo..." "Did the US government have 1.5 billion to throw aw..." "Rotini with Fennel, Carrots . . . in the Kitchen" "Bad stocks" "My favorite TV shows to stream on Neftlix" "Fire them all!" "6 men, 1 woman" "6 men, 2 women" "when npr's right, when npr's wrong" "revenge and ricky" "Destroying our own planet" "The continuing war in Iraq" "I hate liars" "Smash and McPhee" "The worthless Amitabh Pal and Alex Hern" "Breaking the walls" "How To Marry A Millionaire" "Jennifer Carroll is an embarrassment" "Rounding up Lucy" "We just got here" "Idiot of the week" "Iraq and Syria" "THIS JUST IN! BABY JANE JONATHAN!" "But you are, Jonathan, but you are!"

THIS JUST IN! BABY JANE JONATHAN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

JONATHAN CAPEHART, THE LITTLEST URKLE IN THE CULT OF ST. BARACK, POSES AS A REPORTER AT THE WASHINGTON POST WHERE HE SNAPS AND SNITS NEAR DAILY AND TRIES TO PASS IT OFF AS JOURNALISM.


TODAY HE IS YET AGAIN HUNTING FOR BEAR.  OR A TOP.  OR WHATEVER.

SO HE STOMPS HIS FEET AND POPS HIS ROLLING EYES AND GOES ALL BABY JANE HUDSON ON MITT ROMENY.

 THEN HE CALLS THAT REPORTING.

YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT HE CALLS A RELATIONSHIP.




FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Like violence, the political crisis continues. The Economist offers their take on the political crisis today:

But Mr Maliki, who has been in charge since 2006, is opposed not just by Sunni jihadists. Many moderate Iraqis, both Shias and Sunnis, fear he is heading down a path to dictatorship. The political atmosphere is toxic. No meaningful legislation, apart from an annual budget, has been passed for several years. One of the country’s two vice-presidents, Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni, is being tried in absentia for alleged links to terrorism. Iraq’s Kurds are increasingly divorced from the rest of the country: their regional government has now signed 48 oil contracts without the consent of the national government in Baghdad, which is infuriated. Meanwhile people in the capital and other towns, suffering sweltering temperatures during the fasting month of Ramadan, are frequently bereft of electricity. There have been angry mass protests in Basra, the main town of the south, against dire public services.

However, Mr Maliki is still managing to shore up support, mainly among his fellow Shias, who make up a good 60% of the population. One of the Kurds’ two main leaders, Jalal Talabani, the country’s president, who wants to sustain the status quo by keeping Mr Maliki in place, has ensured that parliament does not have a chance to vote on a no-confidence motion.

Tuesday evening, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. al-Mutlaq belongs to Iraqiya which came in first in the March 2010 elections while Nouri belongs to State of Law which came in second. Dar Addustour reports that the two discussed the stalemate, upcoming provincial elections and the election commission. Alsumaria notes that Ayad Allawi (head of Iraqiya) has stated today that the need to question Nouri before Parliament continues and needs to be speeded up. Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya which should have ended any hopes Nouri had for a second term as prime minister. But the White House backed Nouri -- and spat on the Iraqi voters and the Iraqi Constitution -- allowing Nouri to create Political Stalemate I which lasted for 8 months. It was ended when the all parties -- including Nouri -- agreed to the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. It gave the Kurds this, Iraqiya that, etc. Nouri? It gave him a second term as prime minister. He used the Erbil Agreement to get that, pretended he was going to honor the contract but, as soon as he was named prime minister, he tossed it aside. Since the summer of 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been publicly calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. This is Political Stalemate II. Currently, there is a move -- and it's Constitutional -- to call Nouri before the Parliament and question him. After questioning, a vote could be taken to determine whether or not the answers he provided restored confidence in him or meant that the MPs registered a no-confidence vote.

Alsumaria notes that Ayad Allawi stated he was reviewing the strategy for the next move. All Iraq News adds that he restated, in the press statement, his opinion that the Reform Commission was a waste of time. Back on December 21st, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi (a member of Iraqiya) and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (a Kurd) began calling for a national conference to address the ongoing stalemate and/or crisis. Nouri threw every road block he could think of to delay and stop that from happening. In June, suddenly he wanted a Reform Commission to 'solve' the problem. The Reform Commission is a joke. It's always been a joke. It's Nouri's pets declaring what they want for him and it has no teeth so even if the other political players had full participation, nothing would come from it. Allawi notes that the Erbil Agreement needs to be reinstated and that a series of 'reforms' prepared by (Nouri's) National Alliance isn't going to change that. He notes the demands remain the same as they've been all along.

In a sign of what a tool the National Alliance is becoming for Nouri (largely Ammar al-Hakim and Ibrahim al-Jafaari's segment of the National Alliance) on Saturday, Nasiriyah reported that the National Alliance was vowing to refuse to allow the bill to pass that would limit a prime minister to two terms (it would also put a two-term limit on the presidency and on the Speaker of Parliament but the National Alliance is only concerned with Nouri).

The Khaleej Times' editorial board notes, "While politicians squabble for control in the Iraqi parliament, the roads and streets of the country are stained with blood of innocent people. If the country’s politicians don’t realise the gravity of the situation and reach a compromise, there’s a possibility that Iraq might become ungovernable again."

Today the Parliament was supposed to pass an Election Law which would allow for provincial elections in March of next year. Nasiriyah reports that the vote has been postponed. Also today, Alsumaria notes, the temperature was expected to reach 49 degrees Celsius. That's 120 degrees Farehnheit (actually 120.2 degrees). Al Rafidayn notes that today's been declared a holiday as a result of the heat. AFP notes that it actually reached 52 degrees Celsius (125.6 degrees Farehnheit) and they report:

Hunched over, Yaqub mutters softly, "It's Ramadan, and I am fasting," as if to justify his actions, before he steps underneath an outdoor shower in central Baghdad to cool off in the boiling heat.

"It's hard," the delivery man admits, referring to the temperatures across Iraq which have topped 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) in recent days, spurring authorities to declare Thursday a holiday for all government workers.

"This feels good," Yaqub, 53, says after a refreshing splash of water.

Yesterday's snapshot covered the joint-hearing of the US House Armed Services Committee and House Veterans Affairs Committee. I stated, "Sequestration was discussed. This is an automatic measure that will kick in if the buget is not balanced. Established in the hearing is the Veterans Affairs will not be effected but the Defense Dept will be." A community member noted Michael Levine's Honolulu Civil Beat who quotes VA Secretary Eric Shinseki stating VA "is exempt from sequestration -- except for administrative costs." Which is it? Levine's correct in his quote. But that's not what we've been covering or that veterans have been worried about. Their concern and what we've been covering is health care, etc. That will not be effected. Sequestration will not touch that. Administrative efforts? Though hard for many to believe, the VA could get slower. But if sequestration kicks in (automatic budget cuts), VA will not be effected in terms of what it supplies veterans. Senators Patty Murray and Richard Burr and House Reps Jeff Miller and Bob Filner -- among others -- worked very hard on addressing this: Veterans will not be effected. The White House is very clear on how bad that would look for them if veterans benefits were cut. Barack Obama already has enough problems with veterans issues as Reuters pointes out:

His 2013 budget request for the VA is more than $40 billion, or 41 percent, bigger than the one he inherited when he took office, helping to cover construction of hospitals and clinics, staff increases, and expanded disability benefits. That has come despite the warning from some in the outgoing George W. Bush administration that the VA apparatus "is broken, just play defense," according to a member of Obama's transition team.

Yet, based on interviews with veterans, their advocates, and VA and other administration officials, as well as a review of available data, life for many veterans has grown more challenging under Obama's watch.

Veterans returning home today join lines for disability payments much longer than those Obama called intolerable in 2008. Their chances of finding jobs in a bleak economy are worse than those of most other Americans. Veterans' complaints of employment discrimination by the federal government have actually risen.

Veterans remain more likely to be homeless than the general population. The VA estimates more than 67,000 sleep in shelters and on the streets or are otherwise considered homeless, a figure that is only slightly better than in 2009.

In the hearing yesterday, Shinseki and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta were the two witnesses offering testimony. Ranking Member Bob Filner spoke of how he felt there should be an exit boot camp to address various issues that can come up in civilian life. Last night, Ava's covered that in "The joint Armed Service and House Veterans hearing (Ava)." On the continued lack of interface between VA and DoD, Steve Vogel (Washington Post) notes this morning, "The Washington Post reported in November that despite the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala commission in 2007 to create a single point of contact to cut red tape for the most severely wounded service members, DoD and VA had instead created at least a dozen programs to coordinate the care." Esther Carey (Federal News Radio) reports today, "The two departments signed a roadmap agreement that will let them develop a future integrated system under a common technology framework. Shinseki said a key difference between the current effort and other failures over the past 10 years was that the way ahead envisions an open-architecture system rather than one that hinges on closed, proprietary systems." Shinseki said a lot. A lot of hot air, a lot of justifications, a lot of nonsense. We'll note two members who called this happy talk out.

US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle: My question has to do with -- and you've heard some references to it -- the Dole - Shalala Commission and the fact that now, five years later, after they issued this urgent call to streamline, to make sure that we have a single point of reference for the care and service and benefits of our military we have to very distinct entities. We've had multiple hearings trying to get assurance from DoD and the VA as to how you're going to get this together so we can make sure that our veterans get the services without being overwhelmed by an extremely complex system. So I would ask you both today, please, how specifically -- what are the goals, what is the plan, to get these two entitites under one roof so that you're complying with the Dole - Shalala Commission and their recommendations for our veterans. I thank you both.

Secretary Eric Shinseki: The program, the Federal Recovery Coordination Program, in existence since 2007, and I think as Secretary Panetta indicated earlier, two good Departments launched and essentially developed good programs that don't quite harmonize. We have a task force with the specific direction to study and bring harmony to these programs, where are we being -- duplicating one another? Where are we not doing things that we should be doing? So it's going to get a good look here. And I'd say in the next couple of months. And I'd be happy -- and I think 

Secretary Panetta would be as well -- to make our people available to provide the results of that.

Secretary Leon Panetta: You know, we -- Look, we -- I think -- Secretary Shinseki and I share the same frustration. I mean, I -- We've been working on this and frankly we've been pushing on this to say why can't we get faster results? Why can't we get this done on a faster track? And, you know, bottom line is: Frankly, we're just going to have to kick ass and try to make it happen and that's what we're going to do.

US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle: I would suggest in your opening statement, Mr. Panetta, you mentioned commitment and we look to the military, their commitment, as an example to our country. We should be that committed to them to make sure that we get this job done. I thank you both very much.

Though he spoke several people before Buerkle, US House Rep Bill Johnson's comments really fit with her remarks .

US House Rep Bill Johnson: I understand that you can't account for the last 10 years, Mr. Secretary [Shinseki] and I understand that you've got two bureaucracies that don't necessarily like to be told what to do and get along all the time. But I'll submit to you that another five years is-is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and, gentlemen, it ought to be unacceptable to you. This is not a matter of can-do or should-do. This is a matter of want-to and will-do. This is 2012. And one of the underlying issues, Mr. Secretary, quite honestly is the VA's lack of an overall technology architecture. You and I have talked about this before and it still doesn't exist today as far as I know. I've pointed that out. My Committee has pointed that out. Organizations outside that have looked at the VA's IT Dept have pointed that out. You know, I'm just not convinced that five years from now -- given that I don't know where you two will be -- but my fear is that we're going to be sitting right here talking about this same issue again because we're not going about it with the discipline that's needed. I come from an information techonology career of over 30 years. I worked at US Special Operations Command as the Director of the CIO staff. I know what it takes to get this stuff done and five years, gentlemen, is totallly unacceptable. And I don't really have a question for you I just want you to fix this for crying out loud.

Those are some pretty important statements even before you factor in that they came from someone with an Information and Technology (IT) background.  We'll close out on Wednesday's hearing by including this section where US House Rep Niki Tsongas is noting the documentary The Invisible War:

US House Rep Niki Tsongas: As you [Shinseki] say, "That which starts during military service ends up in the VA." And that movie so painfully highlights the multiple bureaucratic hurdles survivors of such assualts -- which are all too frequent across all the services -- must endure to prove that their physical or their psychiatric symptoms are connected to an incident of Military Sexual Trauma. And shows that too often, victims are unsuccessful in pursuing their claims for assistance. To address one aspect of this problem, the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Act included language that required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to develop a comprehensive policy for the Dept of Defense on the retention of access to evidence and records relating to sexual assault involving members of the Armed Services. This policy is to be in place by October 1, 2012. Can you both comment on the status of this policy? I'd also welcome any further thoughts you may have on how these claims can be processed faster and more accurately.

Secretary Leon Panetta: It's a -- It's a very important issue for me. I'm not going to wait for the legislation to put that policy in place because I think it ought to take place in providing that kind of guidance and assistance to those that have been the victims of sexual assault so that they get the kind of support that they need in order to get not only the care they need but, if they want to continue their career, to get the support system that would allow them to continue their career. And I think it's fair to say that Secretary Shinseki and I are going to work together on to make sure that we can -- we can deal with this on both sides -- not only on the Defense side, but on the Veterans side for those that ultimately move in that direction.

US House Rep Niki Tsongas: Thank you both. I look forward to seeing that policy in effect.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Iraqi fighters down a helicopter and more" "The threat against the US and the failure of 'trus..." "The joint Armed Service and House Veterans hearing (Ava)" "Melting" "5 men, 2 women" "what next?" "The Geithner Follies" "And now it's food" "Duvall" "Two great reads" "A fourth term for Bush?" "Drone wars" "THIS JUST IN! HIS LIES EVEN CONFUSE HIM!" "Lost in the maze of his own lies"

THIS JUST IN! HIS LIES EVEN CONFUSE HIM!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O APPEARS TO BE STARRING IN A REMAKE OF THE UNITED STATES OF TARA.  DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR BARRY O'S PLEDGE YESTERDAY TO WORK WITH CONGRESS ON THE ISSUE OF GUN CONTROL.

HUH?

IS THIS NOT THE SAME CELEBRITY IN CHIEF WHO'S BEEN WHINING NON-STOP SINCE JANUARY THAT THIS IS A DO-NOTHING CONGRESS OUT TO GET HIM?


IT'S THE SAME CONGRESS WE'VE HAD ALL YEAR AND YET NOW HE SAYS HE CAN WORK WITH THEM?

AND DON'T TRY TO PRETEND 'WELL, REPUBLICANS . . .'  IT IS VERY DOUBTFUL SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID IS GOING TO GET ON BOARD WITH ANY BARRY O GUN PROGRAM.

SO, BARRY O, WHICH PERSONALITY ARE WE SPEAKING TO NOW?  DOES IT HAVE ITS HAND ON THE BUTTON?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This morning, US House Rep Jeff Miller noted that "in 1961 John F. Kennedy said we'd put a man on the moon, eight years later, we were there.  We're talking about an integrated electronic health records by 2017.  Why could we put a man on the moon in eight years and we're not starting from ground zero on the electronic health record -- why is it taking so long?" He was asking that of the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki who were appearing before a joint-hearing of the House Armed Services and House Veterans Affairs Committee.  

Of course no real answer was given.  A grinning -- apparently amused -- Shinseki began his non-answer by declaring that "I can't account for the previous ten years."  Though he didn't say it, he also apparently couldn't account for the three years that he's been Secretary of the VA.  Three years and seven months.  You'd think Shinseki would be able to speak to the issue.  He couldn't.  He could offer that he met with Panetta four times this year with plans for a fifth meeting.  This was the same amount he met with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates but, apparently, in a few months less time.   I have no idea what that or his ridiculous grin was about. 

But I do think Shinseki may have inadvertantly provided an answer for the delay when he went on to declare,  "It's taken us seventeen months to get to an agreement that both Secretary Panetta and I signed that describes the way forward."  There's the problem right there. 

Back in March 2011 what was Shinseki bragging about?  As Bob Brewin (Nextgov.com) reported, "Veteran Affairs Sectretary Eric Shinseki said Thursday he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed on March 17 that their departments would develop a common electronic health record system."  So that was agreed to in March 2011.  But it took Shinseki and and Gates 17 months to figure out how?  There's your time waster right there.  And it was not needed.  Shinseki and Panette did not need to 'invent' a damn thing.  This is not a new issue.  VA has long ago addressed what they need with regards to records and DoD has identified the same.  And after this had been done (and redone), Robert Dole and Donna Shalala served on the Dole -Shalala Commission coming up with many of the same things.  The Dole -Shalala Commission was established in 2007 and formally known as the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.   Appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee February 7, 2008, VA's Dr. James Peake testified that this electronic record was "a critical recommendation in the Dole-Shalala Commission report."

The hearing meant nothing for progress on that issue.  It was an embarrassment.  Leon Panetta can take comfort in the fact that he's only now about to hit the one-year mark but Shinseki was sworn in back in January.   Shinseki will get easy press at the end of his term and no one will complain about the foot dragging, the refusal to utilize the work that was already done -- that tax payers footed the bill for over and over -- and instead to take a laid back and non-rush attitude towards something identified as "critical" by a presidential commission back in 2007. 

US House Rep Susan Davis would ask about the lack of coordination between VA and DoD and also about "the kind of counselors that are needed for this" -- the influx of veterans expected as the Afghanistan War draws down -- and will be aware of the service member issues and resources and veterans issues and resources?  Training was the reply from Panetta to a question that probably required something more than a stock reply.

Other issues were brought up.  For example, Sequestration was discussed.  This is an automatic measure that will kick in if the buget is not balanced.  Established in the hearing is the Veterans Affairs will not be effected but the Defense Dept will be. 

Chair Buck McKeon:   As I've already said, we know there's high unemployment among our veterans -- our young veterans.  And we know with the 487 billion cut in defense, we will have a hundred thousand leaving the military.  We will have another hundred thousand  if the sequestration takes effect.  What plans do you have to ensure that these service members will not go from the front lines to the unemployment lines?  And how do you see potential reduction in the Defense workforce resulting from the sequestration and what effect will that have on -- what will you be able to do to try to move them into some kind of meaningful employment?  Mr. Secretary?

Secretary Leon Panetta:  Well I sure as hell hope sequestration doesn't happen. 

Chair Buck McKeon:  I'm with you.

Secretary Leon Panetta:  It would be -- as I said -- time and time again, a disaster for the Department as far as our budget is concerned and as far as our ability to respond to the threats that are out there.  And it would have a huge impact.  It takes -- It doubles the cuts in the military.  It would obviously add another hundred thousand that would have to be reduced and the impact of that on top of the reductions that are currently going to take place would place a huge burden on the systems to be able to respond to that.  I think that it would be near impossible to do the work that we're trying to do and make it work effectively.  I think that we can handle what we've proposed in our budget and the drawdown numbers that are coming now.  We've tried to do this pursuant to a rational strategy over these next five years.  And I think the systems that we are working on and what we are trying to put together in place, I'm confidant in that. But if sequestration should happen and be put on top of it, I think it could really strain the system. 

Chair Buck McKeon:   Mr. Secretary, could you please give us that input for the record.

US House Rep Buck McKeon is Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, House Rep Adam Smith is Ranking Member.  On the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the leadership is Chair Jeff Miller and Ranking Member Bob Filner.  There are many things that will be takeaways from today's hearing.  But the real take away should be Shinseki's ridiculous statement about the 'progress' on the eletronic medical record front,  "The fact that we've agreed upon a concept is, I think, groundbreaking."

Listening to that, it was hard not to recall Ranking Member Filner's opening remarks, specifically this: "The issues that we have, we've been talking as a Congress and with the Executive Branch for many, many years.   Decades in fact.  We've got to break down the bureaucratic stuff that keeps us from having a common health record system.  I mean it just -- People die because that system is not integrated enough.  It seems this is not beyond our capacity to get those systems integrated."  He said those words before either witness had spoken.  20 years in Congress did not make Bob Filner psychic but it has made him one of the most informed members of Congress on veterans issues.

Ranking Member Bob Filner:  In a democracy where you need  obviously the support and vote of people to go to war, the cost of war is a pretty important item to understand.  And treating our veterans is obviously part of the cost of war and should be considered that.  I have tried on several occasions to add an amendment to any war appropriations, 15 to 20% surcharge because that's the difference in your budgets for veterans.  And of course since we've been borrowing money for war, nobody wants to borrow the money for veterans.  So it's not looked on kindly.  But part of the cost of war, you know, we have the statistics show about 6,000 killed in action -- I'm sorry, 5,000 killed in action since 9-11.  And almost 50,000 wounded.  And yet those who have showed up at the VA for help -- and I know there are different definitions and different circumstances -- I think it close to or could be over a million. Why is there such a disparity between -- and it's important for the public to understand what is the cost of war?  How do you account for a million veterans seeking help for problems in war and only 50,000 considered casualties?  Mr. Panetta, I'll go to you first since you know how to manipulate the two minutes, you're looking to him, I know, so you don't have to answer?

Secretary Leon Panetta:  Well, no, I mean it's -- it clearly is the-the impact of war over the last 10 years and how it's effected those who have served and they do return.  When they come back, the reality is that, uh, not -- not all of them -- not all of them are getting the kind of care and benefits they should get. And it's our responsbility to try to respond to those kind of needs as they return.  This -- look, this system's going to be overwhelmed.  I mean, you know, let's-let's not kid anybody, we're looking at a system that's already overwhelmed.  The likelihood is that we drawdown further troops and, uh, as we -- over these next five years, assuming sequester doesn't happen, we are still going to -- we are going to be adding another hundred thousand per year.  And the ability to be able to respond to that in a way that effectively deals with the health care issues, with the benefits issues, with all the other challenges.  That is not going to be an easy challenge.  And, uh, the cost, you talk about the cost of-of war, this is always part of the cost of war.  It's not just dealing with fighting, it's also dealing with the veterans who return and that is going to be a big ticket item, if we're going to do this right.

Ranking Member Bob Filner:  I just hope you'll look at that boot camp idea as a way to really get at that issue.

What idea?  Ava's covering it tonight at Trina's site. 

US House Rep Silvestre Reyes noted his hope that they could do more joint-hearings like this and, earlier, Ranking Member Bob Filner had noted they had tried repeatedly to do a joint-hearing like this with the two Secretaries but had been unsuccessful.  If they do have another hearing, they might want to have a basic topic.  I have never sat through such a disorganized hearing or heard someone muse at length -- and mistakenly, he would be corrected after -- as US House Rep Hank Johnson did in the middle of the hearing.  What was the point of any of those remarks -- none of which were questions?  You had two minutes to ask either or both Panetta and Shinseki questions and instead you offered some sort of enjambment poem? 

Even in a scattershot hearing, that stood out.  Why did he even show up?  I asked Betty's father on the phone if veterans issues aren't a concern in the area?  (Betty's father, who is a veteran, is also a constituent of Hank Johnson's.)  And he couldn't understand why his representative wasted the time instead of utilizing it.  I sat through it and I still don't know what that nonsense was?

"Back from the Battlefield" is probably too broad of a topic for a hearing, let alone a joint-hearing.  But many people did raise important issues in their time.  Take US House Rep Loretta Sanchez who sits on the Armed Services Committee.

US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: In preparing for this hearing, I asked my staff back in Orange County to go through the casework we have with respect to veterans in transtion.  And although we have a great relationship with our VA in Longbeach and we have two clinics -- one in Santa Ana and one in Anaheim -- in our district, the reality is that the most troublesome area with respect to these cases involved the quality and the lack of health care for our service members who are transitioning from active or having been called up and now out into the veteran world if you will.  And, in fact, I have a lot of veterans who come to my office and they express real concern about not receiving treatment or having a longtime to wait for a speciality doctor, for example.  In Longbeach, it would be oncology where we must be short-staffed or something of the sort.  And the other really big concern for them is being prepped up for surgery and then somebody on the surgery team then doesn't show up -- out of whatever -- and then the surgery is postponed..  And it isn't until these people come to my office  and we call in directly that we're able to get that rescheduled.  So my question is how are you addressing these types of concerns with respect to health care and why, if a surgery's scheduled, why aren't people showing up to be on that surgery team?  And, more importantly, why does it take a Congressional office to call to ask that it be rescheduled?

Of course Shinseki had to take it for the record (meaning his office will respond to her questions after they've looked into the matter, respond outside the hearing).  But you better believe veterans in her district are about to find rescheduling postponed surgeries a lot easier.  She used her time wisely and served her constituents -- probably better than anyone else present (and that was just her first question). 

Contrast that with Johnson's "spread my love for you  publicly" and "true gentleman" and "the underdog is now on top" rambles.  Offering up bios "become the Secretary of the Army -- Chairman of the Army?  Or whatever.  Uhhhhmmm.  Hmmm."  At the end of his pause -- word -- pause -- stumble what is one to say?

"Far out!"?  "Groovy!"? 

Maybe: "Who's holding?" 

He stops his ramble to note he's hearing thing and then attempts to reproduce the sound.  When told his time has expired, he responds, "Already?" 

Again, what do you say after all that?

No one was served by that crap.  No one.  And if you're going to tell a witness their own biography, have your facts straight.  But better yet, don't waste everyone's time with that garbage to begin with.  It's a real shame Johnson doesn't seem to believe that he has veterans in his district and that they have needs that should have been addressed.  That was embarrassing and there's no excuse for it.  Maybe Jay Leno was right and we should be drug testing members of Congress?

I have no idea but enduring that nonsense was like one of those Congressional townhalls where you are all waiting hours to way in on an issue but everyone has to first endure the idiot who brought a guitar and can't sing and can't write a song but wants to force all gathered to endure his little ditty as he stands at the mike.

It was a distraction and a diversion.  Fortunately, others had serious issues to explore.  Such as suicide.

 

US House Rep Mike Michaud:  Quick question, and I want to read from a Veterans Service Organization letter that they actually sent to Senator [Jim] Webb just last week.  And just part of it says, "The only branch of the military to show a marked improvement decreasing the number of persons taking their own life is the United States Marines.  They should also be praised for their active leadership from the very top in addressing the problem and implementing the solutions.  The remaining services have yet to be motivated to  take any substanative action. "  Secretary Panetta, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times and I've looked the generals in the eye and I've asked them what are they doing personally to help the stigmatized TBI, PTSD?  And the second question is: Do they need any help?  I get the same answer over there as I do over here in DC: 'Everything's okay.  We've got all the resources we need.  We don't need any help.'  But the interesting thing is someone much lesser ranked came up to me, after I asked the general that question, outside and said, "We need a lot more help."  And he suggested  that I talk to the clergy to find out what they are seeing happening.  And I did that trip and every trip since then.  And I'm finding that our service members are not getting the help that they need.  And my question, particularly after looking at this letter that was sent to Senator Webb, it appears the Marines are doing a good job so why is it so different between the Marines, the Army and other branches?  And can you address that?

Secretary Leon Panetta: You know -- Obviously, there's no silver bullet here.  I wish there were to try to deal with suicide prevention.  We-we have a new suicide prevention office that's trying to look at programs  to try to address this terrible epedemic. I  mean, we are looking.  If you look at just the numbers, recent total are you've got about 104  confirmed and 102 pending investigation in 2012.  The total of this is high,, almost 206.  That's nearly one a day.  That is an epedemic.  Something is wrong.  Part of this is people are inhibited because they don't want to get the care that they probably need. So that's part of the problem, trying to get the help that's necessary.  Two, to give them access to the kind of care that they need.  But three -- and, again, I stress this because I see this in a number of other areas, dealing with good discipline and good order and, uh, trying to make sure that our troops are responding to the challenges -- it is the leadership in the field.  It's the platoon commander.  It's the platoon sergeant.  It's the company commander. It's the company sergeant.  The ability to look at their people, to see these problems.  To get ahead of it and to be able to ensure that when you spot the problems, you're moving that individual to the kind of-of assistance that they need in order to prevent it.  The Marines stay in close touch with their people.  That's probably one of the reasons that the Marines are doing a good job.  But what we're stressing in the other services is to try to develop that-that training of the command.  So that they two are able to respond to these kinds of challenges. 

US House Rep Mac Thornberry also raised the issue of suicides, noting Time magazine's recent cover story (July 23rd issue), Mark Thompson &; Nancy Gibbs' "One A Day: Every day, one U.S. soldier commits suicide.  Why the military can't defeat its most insidious enemy."  He raised the issue of "33% of all military suicides have never deployed overseas at all and 43% had deployed once."  Panetta confirmed that statistic from the article was accurate.  Panetta argued that suicide is on the rise "in the larger society" and that this is reflected within the military.  Chair McKeon wanted to know if the age group committing suicide in the military was reflective of the age group doing the same in the civilian sphere?  Shinseki stated that in the age group of 15-34, suicide is the third leading cause of death and, in the age group of  25 to 34,  it is the second leading cause of death.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Syrian refugees flee in larger numbers than expect..."
"At least 355 people dead from Iraq violence this m..."
"Barack's ugly campaign"
"Senator Bernie Sanders raises the issue"
"4 men, 1 woman"
"oh, glick"
"TV groundbreaker Sherman Hemsley has passed away"
"Deaths"
"Have you seen her badonkadonk?"
"Everything was handed to him"
"There's spirit in this land"
"2 things worth reading"
"Baby, that's not back"
"THIS JUST IN! PACKING IT ON!"

THIS JUST IN! PACKING IT ON!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE




SHE HULK IS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL STRESSING IT'S ALL ABOUT CHOICES.

AND HAVING REACHED THAT CERTAIN AGE WHERE YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN YOUR ASS OR YOUR FACE -- SHE'S APPARENTLY DECIDED TO GO WITH A HUGE BUTT.

AND IT'S THESE KIND OF DECISIONS ON NON-ISSUES THAT CAUSE THE CAST OF A REALLY BAD TV SHOW -- WHERE A WHITE MAN CREATED A BUNCH OF INSULTING RACIAL STEREOTYPES -- TO THINK, "HEY IF WE GET BACK TOGETHER, WE'LL BE LIKE THE BEATLES AND GET ALL THIS SUPPORT FOR BARRY O!"


NO, YOU JUST REMIND THE COUNTRY HOW OUT OF TOUCH BARRY O AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE.

THIS YEAR SHE HULK CHOSE HER FACE -- MAYBE BECAUSE SHE'S ALREADY SPENT 20 YEARS MARRIED TO AN ASS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday, US President Barack Obama delivered a speech to the VFW. Michael A. Memoli and Kathleen Hennessey reported on the speech for the Los Angeles Times and David Sider reported on it for McClatchy Newspapers. Don Gonyea (Morning Edition, NPR -- link is audio and transcript) noted it this morning in a report that quoted Barack stating, "I will stand with our troops every single time."

 

 

But you didn't, Barack, but you didn't. Not in 2009.

 

 

Dropping back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:

 

 

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

 

 

The US military believed that they had in custody those who had orchestrated the killing of 5 US soldiers. Barack Obama may claim this week, "I will stand with our troops every single time," but he didn't in June 2009.

 

 

He chose to stand with the British. He chose to release people believed to be responsible for the deaths of 5 US soldiers.

 

 

He did that and refused to answer questions about it -- and the timid press refused to ever ask him about it when they had him for a sit down. We know what the father of Jonathan B. Chism thought, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

 

 

Somebody needs to. And when Barack boasted, "I will stand with our troops every single time," he should have been booed. 5 US service members believed to be killed by the League of Righteous -- brutally killed, kidnapped and killed -- and Barack orders the release of the leaders and does so because he wants to score points with the British? No, he did not choose to stand with US troops.

 

 

And what came of the deal he made with the League of the Righteous? It didn't end there. It didn't end with the December 30, 2009 release of British citizen Peter Moore who was alive or with the three corpses Alec Maclachlan (body handed over in September), Jason Crewswell (body handed over in June) and Jason Swindelhurst (body handed over in June). That left Alan McMenemy. And we called Barack out for this deal, we've continued to call him out. But, too bad for Barack, terrorists talk. They tattle.

 

 

Alan McMenemy, sadly, was already dead. Had been dead for a long time. But his return was delayed. Dropping back to July 9, 2011:

 

 

Though Barry's 'big' deal was supposed to free all five, the League, years later, is now insisting they want a new deal (and figure Barry's just the pushover to give it to them?).

Al Mada reports they have issued a statement where they savage the US government for not honoring -- and quickly honoring -- the agreement made with them. As a result, they say Alan McMenemy will not be released.
Peter Moore, the only one released alive, was a computer tech working in Iraq. Four British bodyguards were protecting him. The bodyguards were McMenemy, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec MacLachlan and Jason Cresswell. The families of the four have continued to publicly request that Alan McMenemy be released.
They condemn the "procrastionation" of the US government after the deal was made and state that a promise was also broken when "US forces did not stop attacks" -- apparently Barack made very grand promises -- so now Alan McMenemy will not be released. The statement is credited to Akram al-Ka'bi.
What the statement really does is demonstrate what many condemned in 2009: The US government, the administration, entered into an agreement that did not benefit the US or Iraq. They freed known killers from prison. Killers of Iraqis, killers of American citizens. There was nothing to be gained by that act for Iraq or the US. At some point, history will ask how Barack Obama thought he was fulfilling his duties of commander in chief by making such an ignorant move?

 

 

Poor Barack. He made a deal with terrorists and the terrorists weren't kind enough to stay quiet about it. January 5th of this year they said they'd release the body of Alan McMenemy and did. It really was the British government's responsibility, their five citizens. The US government's responsibility should have been putting the League on trial. Certainly if you claim "I will stand with our troops every single time" that should be what you do.

 

 

But it gets worse. They were the leaders of the group behind it. There was also a name that's received a great deal more attention from the press: Ali Mousa Daqduq. He was the Lebanese that the US military kept in custody in Iraq. Possibly because he wasn't an Iraqi, the League didn't care about getting his release.

 

 

December 17, 2011, Charlie Savage (New York Times) reported on what was termed "a move likely to unleash a political backlash inside the United States." What was he reporting on? The White House's decision to release Ali Musa Daqduq to the Iraqi government, the man "accused of helping to orchestrate a January 2007 raid by Shiite militants who wore U.S.-style uniforms and carried forged identity cards. They killed five U.S. soldiers -- one immediately and four others who were kidnapped and later shot and dumped beside a road." Reporting on it the same day, Matt Apuzzo (AP) noted the reactions of two US senators.

 

 

Senator Mark Kirk (in a letter before the release): "Daqduq's Iranian paymasters would like nothing more than to see him transferred to Iraqi custody, where they could effectively pressure for his escape or release. We truly hope you will not let that happen."

 

Senator Saxby Chambliss (after news broke of the release): "Rather than ensure justice for five American soldiers killed by Hezbollah terrorist Ali Musa Daqduq, the administration turned him over to Iraq, once again completely abdicating its responsibility to hold on to deadly terrorists. Given Iraq's history of releasing detainees, I expect it is only a matter of time before this terrorist will be back on the battlefield."

 

 

Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported that US National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor insisted that the White House "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes." Some assurances. May 7th, Daqduq was cleared of all charges. Senator Kelly Ayotte released a statement that day noting that she and 19 other US Senators lodged their objection to transferring Daqduq July 21, 2011 in a formal letter which "expressed the Senators' concerns that transferring Daqduq to Iraqi custody might result in his release and a return to terrorist activities." Those concerns were dismissed. When the May 7th verdict came down the White House demanded a "do-over" in Iraqi courts. No surprise (except maybe to the White House) the same Iraqi courts cleared Daqduq of the charges which led the July 12th fuming from the White House that appeared to be just for show:

 

Lara Jakes and Qassim abdul-Zahra (AP) report that Antony Blinken -- Vice President Joe Biden's national security adviser -- states that the US wants Daqduq to be hld and that they not only want to see him extradited to the US, they've already made that request. They also note, "Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar, spokesman for Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council said the appeals court ruling is final and there are no charges pending against Daqduq. Ali al-Moussawi, media adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said he was unaware of any U.S. request to extradite Daqduq."

 

 

The White House said they had made a request. Iraq said, no, they hadn't. And there's been no mention of it since -- the press really rolls over for this administration -- despite the fact that Blinken was just in Iraq last week and was holding Nouri's hand and cooing in his ear so much that Nouri was bragging to the press that the White House was siding with him and not ExxonMobil with regards to the oil deal Nouri wants cancelled (between ExxonMobil and the KRG).

 

 

Again, yesterday Barack Obama claimed, "I will stand with our troops every single time." That's the claim, the record suggests something else completely.

 

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"The political stalemate's impact on the violence"
"The death toll rises and Jay Carney spins"
"Thanks Tom Appelbaum"
"Sally Ride"
"5 men, 1 woman"
"barbra"
"Dynasty and Amelia"
"Frank Pierson"
"That awful Chick-Fil-A"
"Kevin Smith needs to learn when to shut up"
"Barry the liar"
"College, loans, Iraq, Third"
"THIS JUST IN! THE PROTESTS!"
"He drew a crowd"