THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO'S PIMPING!

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


SLIMY TONY BLAIR USED NELSON MANDELA'S MEMORIAL SERVICE TO PLAY PIMP.

THE JOHN WAS HIS CLIENT VICTOR PONTA, FOR THE HOOKER, HE ENLISTED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

NO WORD YET ON WHICH OF BARRY'S SPECIALTIES PONTA WANTED OR WHETHER HE PAID BY THE HOUR OR FOR THE NIGHT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Sheikh Ali al-Suleiman Amir of Duleim tribes said that Sahwa forces should take out of Anbar province., if the central government want security and stability in the province for the next phase.
He said in a speech in the courtyard of the sit-in north of Ramadi : "At the beginning of the formation of Sahwa forces was to fight terrorism, and has been integrated into the security services , but in these days , Sahwa works in favor of a particular parties. so if the central government want security to preavail in Anbar then must get them out of the province.

That's the smartest request he could make.  Sahwa leaders in Anbar are becoming an embarrassment and a menace.  They are threatening the protesters and this week began telling the press that the way to deal with the protests is to go into the sit-ins and bash heads.

The heads that need to be bashed?  Sahwas.  No one really gives a damn about 'em.  They're part of the mafia in Iraq -- that's why so many leaders hail from the concrete business.  They're whorish little toadies who took money from the occupying power (the US) to spy on and attack other Iraqis.

Now the whores have sold out to Nouri and have become his muscle to attack the protesters.

They thought -- as did Nouri -- that they could take the heat of SWAT and other of Nouri's forces -- forces that are primarily Shi'ite.  But the Sahwa in Anbar?  Those are Sunnis.  Sunnis attacking Sunnis, they and Nouri thought, would be able to pull off violence.

It doesn't work that way.

And if Sahwa can't be put on a tighter leash, Iraq's really going to erupt.

The State Dept, the White House and US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft need to explain this to Nouri real quick.

Call them militants, call them rebels, call them insurgents, call them terrorists -- it doesn't matter one damn bit.

What happens if Sahwa doesn't sit its ass down?  What happens if they go after the protesters?

The resistance/the terrorists/the militants/the insurgents suddenly and immediately get street cred in Anbar because they're the only ones who will be seen as standing up for the Sunni population.

If you think things are bad in Iraq right now, you're right.  But if Sahwa launches a violent attack on the protesters, things will get much worse and militants will be able to move much more freely because they will have many people in Anbar aligned with and/or sympathetic to them and their cause.



Nouri can't protect the Iraqi people, he can attack them -- as he's attacked the Camp Ashraf residents all along.  There are 7 Ashraf members who were kidnapped this fall.  Where are they?

Last month,  Brett McGurk, the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, appeared  Wednesday before the  US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa (see the November 13th  "Iraq snapshot," the November 14th "Iraq snapshot" and  the November 15th  "Iraq snapshot").  In that hearing, this exchange took place.



US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee:   [. . .]  But there are hostages in Iraq that we must have now.  There's documentation that those hostages are there by our French allies, by the United Nations and other supportive groups and information.  I can't imagine with the wealth of sophisticated intelligence authorities that we have, that we have funded who have a vast array of information about Americans  cannot pinpoint where starving Iranians, loved ones [are] whose families are trying to save their lives after being on a hunger strike for 73 days.  And so I would ask this question of you, already knowing about your heart and your concern, I will not judge you, I already know that you're committed to getting this right/  Will you -- will you demand of Maliki, not next week or months from now, but can we expect in the next 48 hours a call to the head of the government of Iraq demanding the release of these hostages and demanding their release now?  Or the documented, undeniable evidence that they are not held in Iraq?  Second, would you be engaged with -- or  the Secretary [of State John Kerry] be engaged with -- and I have spoken to Secretary Kerry, I know his heart -- with Maliki to demand the security of those in Camp Ashraf  for now and forever until a relocation to a homeland, a place where their relatives are or where they desire to be? [. . .]

Brett McGurk:  [. . .] We can pinpoint where the people are and I'd like to follow up with you on that.  The seven are not in Iraq.  But I will guarantee in my conversations with Maliki on down, the safety and the security of Camp Ashraf, Camp Liberty, where the residents are, the government needs to do everything possible to keep those poeople safe  but they will never be safe until they're out of Iraq.  And we all need to work together -- the MEK, us, the Committee, everybody, the international community -- to find a place for them to go.  There's now a UN trust fund, we've donated a million dollars and we're asking for international contributions to that fund for countries like Albania that don't have the resources but are willing to take the MEK in.  And we need to press foreign captials to take them in because until they're out, they're not going to be safe and we don't want anyone else to get hurt.  We don't want anymore Americans to get hurt in Iraq, we don't want anymore Iraqis to get hurt in Iraq  and we don't want any more residents of Camp Liberty to get hurt in Iraq and until they're out of Iraq, they're not going to be safe.  This is an international crisis and we need international help and support. 


US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee:  May I follow -- May I just have a minute more to follow up with Mr. McGurk, Secretary McGurk?  And I hear the passion in your voice but let me just say this. We're in an open hearing.  You know where they are.  Who is going to rescue them?  Whose responsibility will it be to get them from where they are into safe haven?  Because otherwise, we're leaving -- we're leaving Maliki now without responsibility.  We're saying, and you're documenting that they're not there.  Let me just say that when my government speaks, I try with my best heart and mind to believe it.  But I've got to see them alive and well to believe that they're not where I think they are, they're in a pointed purse.  I'm glad to here that but I want them to be safe but I want them to be in the arms of their loved ones or at least able to be recognized by their loved one that they're safe somewhere.  So can that be done in the next 48 hours?  Can we have a-a manner that indicates that they are safe?

Brett McGurk:  I will repeat here a statement that we issued on September 16th and it's notable and I was going to mention this in my colloquy with my Congressman to my left, that within hours of the attack, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Score issued a statement praising the attack.  We issued a statement on September 16th calling on the government of Iran to use whatever influence it may have with groups that might be holding these missing persons to secure their immediate release.  And I can talk more about details and the status of these individuals.  And I've briefed some members of the Subcommittee. I'd be happy to follow up. 


Brett McGurk and the US government are not believed on this statement and, as we noted when we reported the above exchange, the whereabouts shouldn't be classified.

If the US was physically protecting the 7, that might -- briefly -- be a reason for not giving their whereabouts.  That is not what the government has suggested. So if they're being held against their will by the Iranian government or a proxy for the Iranian government -- or by Nouri or a proxy for Nouri's government -- newsflash, the ones doing the holding no where the 7 are being held.

It's not classified and kept from the holders.  So why the need for the State Dept to play like the location cannot be spoken of?

Tuesday Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  It was a testy hearing.   John needs to stop being so damn combative in hearings.  He also needs to stop insisting over and over that he get to yammer on.  There's a five minute rule in House hearings.  He was often rude (but at least he spread it around -- he was rude to Republicans and to Democrats). .


US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: And lastly, two issues.  Regarding Camp Ashraf, are the Ashraf 7 being held in Iran or are they in Iraq?  And, Mr. Secretary, [. . .]


He went on and on.  I'm not including it.  I'd love to include the insult to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (and I agreed with him 100% on that), for example that took place in the exchange that followed Ros-Lehtinen, but I don't have the time.  As it is, I'm pushing back coverage of another hearing to Monday's snapshot.  So we'll ignore all of his words that had nothing to do with Camp Ashraf and pick up here.

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:  If you could answer the Ashraf and the Cuba question?

Secretary John Kerry: Beg your pardon?

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:  If you could answer the question about Ashraf --

Secretary John Kerry:  The question of Ashraf was where-where are they?

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:  Iran or Iraq?


Secretary John Kerry:  Well they're in Iraq.

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:  They're in Iraq?

Secretary John Kerry:  The people.

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: The seven hostages that were taken from Ashraf?

Secretary John Kerry:  I-I-I . . .

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:  They have not -- We have not known where they are.

Kerry spoke with the people sitting behind him, then returned to the microphone.

Secretary of State John Kerry:  Uh, I can talk to you about that in classified session.


We're talking about the Ashraf residents so, before we note one more exchange, let's include the overview on the Ashraf community.  As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty.  All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).  Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."  They were attacked again September 1st.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.  It was during that attack that the 7 hostages were taken.

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  I am introducing a bill today that will allow 3,000 refugees from Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty -- now Camp Liberty -- status --refugee status and thus will permit them to be able to come to the United States.  Hundreds of these people have been slaughtered.  They live under constant threat of being murdered, we know that.  And, uh-uh, will this administration be supporting my legislation to prevent these people from being slaughtered by this pro-Mullah regime that we have in Iraq now?

Secretary John Kerry: Well Congressman, I've gone to the lengths of appointing a special representative to work exclusively to get the, uh, -- 

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  I'm just asking about my legislation.

Secretary John Kerry:  Well I need to see the legislation but  in principle we're trying to find a place for -- 

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  So in principle -- you would agree with letting these refugees have status -- refugee status so they can come here

Secretary John Kerry:  Uh, we are -- We're trying to find a place for them to go now.

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  Okay, so in principle --

Secretary John Kerry: In principle, I'd like to see the legislation but I can't speak for the President. 




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Another prison break . . ."
"Sy Hersh's hidden blockbuster?"

"Nikita: Episode four"

"scandal (where sally and cyrus cover up murder)"

"Actors"

"Syria"

"Give him amnesty"

"I hope they were playing stupid"

"More questions from Sibel Edmonds"

"3 can casserole in the Kitchen"

"He's a corporate politician"

"Dylan's a thief"

"His new line of defense"

"THIS JUST IN! LATEST SPIN!"

THIS JUST IN! LATEST SPIN!

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

AS HIS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AT THE MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR NELSON MANDELA CONTINUES TO RESULT IN CRITICISM, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO ATTEMPT TO OFFER NEW EXCUSES.

THIS MORNING, THESE REPORTERS AND SEVEN OTHERS WERE INVITED INTO THE OVAL OFFICE TO HEAR THE LATEST EXPLANATION.

"CHARLES NELSON REILLY," BARRY O EXPLAINED.  "THAT'S WHO I THOUGHT THE MEMORIAL WAS FOR.  THE SELFIE AND THE GRINS AND LAUGHTER?  I FELT I WAS HONORING THE SPIRIT OF CHARLES NELSON REILLY.  IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE SELFIE THAT MICHELLE INFORMED ME THE MEMORIAL WAS ACTUALLY FOR NELSON MANDELA -- NOT CHARLES NELSON REILLY STAR OF MATCH GAME, MATCH GAME '74, MATCH GAME P.M. AND LIDSVILLE."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Granted, the April hearing wasn't a Senate VA hearing.  That's probably why it was an important hearing. April 23rd, Senator Patty Murray, as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, chaired a hearing.  It is the most important hearing for veterans in 2013.  It was, it remains, the most important hearing.  Committee Chair Murray, of course, is the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and she continues to serve on the Senate VA Committee.

In real time, we covered the pertinent exchange at length.  I'm both (a) not in the mood and (b) not going to waste space on it.  So we'll do a small excerpt.

For those who don't know, just to set this up, the VA claims system had a huge backlog and, at this hearing, Shinseki and the always laughable Alison Hickey explained a new way of doing things.  And the press just ignored it and continues to.  It's a shell game.  Let's go to the excerpt.

Chair Patty Murray:  As I mentioned, you have a new announcement of a new initiative to expedite claims that have been waiting for over a year.  And that's encouraging and I'm glad to see that the Department's taking action but I do have some questions about how it is going to be implemented.  And I wanted to ask you, if the VA determines the veteran's final rating is lower than the provisional rating, will the Department seek to recover money that's already been paid to that veteran?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Madam Chairman, uh, you know, that's a question.  I, uh, I-I, what I would say is, I -- our -- historically, when we've established a standard for a veteran, we've usually stayed with that and, uh, let me call on Secretary Hickey here but my-my intent is that the provisional rating that's provided will be on those issues for which we have clarity and documentation and we can render a, uh, a decision.  For issues that, uh, where documentation isn't provided, those are the issues that remain open up to a year, for veterans to locate, with our help even, documentation that would, uh, allow us to,uh, make a decision there.  Uh, Secretary Hickey.

Allison Hickey: Chairman Murray, thank you for the question, for your, uh, interest in the initiative which we think is, uh, really important to, uh, ensure that we're, uh, taking care of those veterans who have waited the longest while we completed the more than 260,000 Agent Orange claims to take care of our Vietnam veterans over the last two and a half years.  We-we, uh - We are using the provisions that allow us to make good decisions so we will continue, uhm, under this provisional criteria to have -- to use service treatment, to use private medical records, to use the information available to our, uhm, on our veterans in terms of the nature and character of their service.  So all the similar evidence we have used in previous decisions we will use again to ensure that we, uh, don't make any of those kinds of decisions.  I don't expect to see any of those decisions, uh, where we overcompensate for, uh, for a claim.  Uhm, the other thing that that we will do is we will, uh, keep the reason for the provisional decision, we put a really huge safety net under every one of our veterans, we're, uh, going to keep the record for a whole year there -- the ability for our veterans to come back with additional evidence.  Uh, uhm, uh, and we will keep asking if --

Chair Patty Murray:  So the additional year will only be to provide information to have an additional claim, not to lower the claim?

Allison Hickey:  Uh, th-the, uh, the reason for the year is to allow to increase the rating, uh, if necessary so I think in -- The advantage is our veterans for the additional year.  Uh, and then they still have after that, the same appeal, uh, processes that they've had in the past.  So we don't anticipate, uh, having, uhm, uh, conditions where we overpay veterans under this initiative.


In real time, reporting on that hearing the day it took place, I wrote:


What the VA is proposing is that a temporary rating be created.  This temporary rating may become permanent.  Or it might increase or it might decrease.  If you're a veteran qualifying for some small-business program based on your rating, how does this impact that?  Hickey gave no response about that or how the temporary claim would effect anything.
Now I think she's an idiot who should be fired.  But can you be that stupid that when asked a direct question, you completely miss it?  Maybe so.  Maybe Allison Hickey is The Dumbest Person In The World.  However, I just see her as deeply dishonest.
As deeply dishonest is the new program that's being discussed.
Murray is correct.  This is going mean "increasing the workload by requiring two" or more "ratings decisions instead of one." And this is only more clear when Hickey asserts that after a veteran receives a rating he or she finds less than satisfactory and they return with more information, Hickey's words, "we will expedite that claim to the front of the line."
What's really going on here?
The VA has bad press because they've not eliminated the claims backlog, they have not reduced the backlog.  They have been given everything they've asked for.  Congress has actually spent the last years asking them, "Is that all you need?  What else can we do to help you with this?"  VA has insisted they had all they needed.
So this is VA's problem.  At the hearing, Senator Tammy Baldwin observed, "Veterans don't want to hear about new claims or new processes, they want results and so do I."  She's correct.  However, this program's not about veterans, it's about the press.  This is a distraction that will create the illusion of something new which, the VA hopes, will garner good press.
In what world, when you're failing at the claims system, are you allowed to create a new system that will pull more employees away?


There were members of the press at that hearing.

They ignored this significant development/change.

They have since falsely reported on the 'success' of the VA with the backlog.

And Chair Sanders was praising them yesterday.  'Oh, goodness, you're reducing the backlog.'

No, they're not.

They're slapping on 'provisional decisions' to rush these through so they can move them into the 'decided' column.  Even though they're not.

I have no problem with a hasty VA decision -- which comes with a real appeal process.  I have no fear that veterans are trying to game the system.  Unlike Senator Jon Tester, I don't have visions of them smoking and drinking and see that as abuse of the system.  I think -- whether they smoke, drink, dip, what have you -- they're trying to get the health care they were promised.  Promises were made, promises need to be kept.

But the provisional 'ratings'?  The VA can change them themselves -- even if the veteran doesn't appeal.  Why are these temporary calls being issued?

It's a shell game to move the numbers without really doing so.

"Reducing the backlog at the expense of accuracy is not acceptable," Chair Sanders declared Wednesday morning.

Two days after the April 23rd hearing, Mark Flatten (Washington Examiner) did something none of his peers could do, he reported on veterans fears (justifiable) about the VA's new rating:

Under the new plan, VA will issue a "provisional" rating within 60 days on cases two years old or more. Veterans would then have a year to submit new evidence to increase their rating, or ask that the rating be made final so they can file an appeal.
The apparent catch is that issuing the provisional rating may lead to creation of a new case, thus letting VA "close" the old one when in fact the veteran's claim remains outstanding.
Ronald Robinson, president of the AFGE union local that represents VA claims workers in Columbia, S.C., said the new rules are nothing more than an effort to make the agency's sinking statistics look better.



Chair Sanders declared at yesterday's hearing, "Veterans are still waiting too long for a decision.  And the Inspector General to find issues with the quality, with the quality of the work.  I am concerned by the most recent IG findings which found significant problems with the provisional decisions reviewed at the Los Angeles regional office."

Imagine that.

Problems with the provisional ratings?

Who could have seen that happening?



I said we'd cover a December House Veterans Affairs Subcomittee and I never did.  Sorry.  I don't like writing about this topic.  I can go on over and over about Tim Arango's September 2012 report for the New York Times where US President Barack Obama sent another "unit of Army Special Operations soldiers" into Iraq in the fall of 2012 -- so much for the 'withdrawal.'

But this nonsense?  Senators were present when this new 'system' was announced.  The press was as well.  And yet they've both failed on this issue.  Veterans groups have raised concerns and yet both groups continue to fail and every other month some mouth breathing press loser is trumpeting 'the numbers' and 'the reductions' and never noting provisional ratings or what's really going on.


At the December 4th hearing, the VA's Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations, Sondra F. McCauley was one of the witnesses.

Deputy Assistant IG Sondra McCauley:  On April 19, 2013, VBA implemented a special initiative to address the oldest pending disability claims in the current backlog. VBA stated the intent of the initiative was to work all claims pending for more than 2 years within 60 days, beginning April 19, 2013. VAROs were directed to devote all RVSRs and as many Veterans Service Representatives as needed to ensure all claims pending over 2-year old were processed and completed. According to VBA, RVSRs were to immediately process the 2-year old claims based on the available evidence in the veterans' claims folders. Further, rating decisions produced were to be considered provisional ratings unless all evidence in support of the claims had already been received (and the claim was considered ready-to-rate) or the ratings assigned provided the highest evaluation for the particular diagnostic code for each claimed issue. However, if medical examination reports or other Federal records were needed, these older claims could not be processed as provisional rating decisions.  During one review errors were identified at the Los Angeles VARO when leadership provided conflicting guidance on the proper procedures for processing provisional rating decisions. We determined 10 -- 91 percent --  of 11 provisional rating decisions we reviewed were not compliant with VBA's guidance related to the 2-year claims processing initiative. Eight of the 10 provisional decisions were determined to be non- compliant because the rating decisions were made without supporting VA medical examinations as required. One claim was decided without Service Treatment Records, which are considered Federal records and must be obtained by VARO staff prior to rendering a provisional rating decision. In the remaining case, the provisional rating was controlled by a future diary that scheduled the claim for review in 2 years instead of 1 year as required.  Requiring a rating decision to be rendered before a medical examination is obtained as a basis for a decision is in conflict with VBA policy. On May 14, 2013, conflicting guidance was sent to the Los Angeles VARO staff via an e-mail from the VARO Director’s office. The guidance incorrectly stated all 2-year old cases requiring a medical examination must have the medical examinations ordered by May 15, 2013. This conflicts with VBA guidance because if a medical examination was required to decide a claim, the claim could not be completed as a provisional decision until staff obtained the necessary medical examinations. The guidance also incorrectly indicated that any claims with medical examinations not completed by June 3, 2013, were to be decided by a provisional rating.
We are concerned similar errors may exist among other provisional rating decisions completed by the Los Angeles VARO after the conflicting guidance was issued. VBA provided data that revealed the Los Angeles VARO completed 532 provisional rating decisions between April 19 – June 19, 2013. VARO staff completed 470 of those 532 provisional decisions claims after the conflicting guidance was disseminated on May 14, 2013. All 10 provisional rating decisions that we identified as non-compliant were completed after this date. We recommended that VBA review all of the provisional rating decisions completed by the Los Angeles VARO after the conflicting guidance was issued to ensure they are accurate.


So in the only examination thus far, 90% of the provisional ratings in the LA area did not follow the (limited) procedures and are most likely incorrect.  The new rating is prompting the IG to call for all of the LA area's provisional ratings to be reviewed.

"In fact, it appears the employees were encouraged to violate VA policies," Senator Johnny Isakson noted yesterday of the IG findings on the LA area.  He noted that the IG recommendation of a review of all provisional rating decisions had been completed and the VA founds  "100s that contained errors."

Hundreds.  Plural.  And we're only talking 532 decisions.

Senator Patty Murray noted what she's hearing from veterans in Washington state, "[. . .] I have heard  repeatedly from veterans that they were confused and frustrated with the provisional rating process. Some believe their claims have been flat out rejected and others didn't understand that they have a year to submit additional evidence. Secretary Hickey, we need to hear more from you today about how the VA's going to improve outreach and communication with veterans [. . .]"  [Note, at the end of yesterday's snapshot, the press release issued by Senator Murrary's office can be read.]

"During Committee oversight," Chair Sanders declared yesterday morning, "my staff has identified clear and unmistakable errors in provisional rating decisions."

Appearing before the Committee was the VA's Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey.  In her opening remarks, Hickey declared, "In June, VA completed the first phase of the initiative, which focused on all claims that had been pending over 2 years. While some claims from that category were still outstanding due to the unavailability of a claimant and other unique circumstances, approximately 99 percent of these 2-year claims (over 67,000) had been processed for Veterans, eliminating those claims from the backlog. Since that milestone, VBA claims processors have focused on completing the claims of Veterans who have been waiting over 1 year for a decision. VA has processed approximately 96 percent of all 513,000 claims pending over 1 year."

Chair Bernie Sanders noted Shinseki's proposed goal for 2015, 125 claims processed within 125 days processed with 98% accuracy.  Sanders wanted to know if VA was "on track to achieve the Secretary's goal" by 2015.  Hickey responded that "we are on track barring any implications to our full" budget request for 2014 Fiscal Year, she stated they would meet the goal.  We'll note this exchange.

Chair Bernie Sanders:  In April of this year, VA rolled out an initiative to provide decisions on the claims that have been pending the longest.  While I appreciate VA's efforts to provide the veterans that have been waiting the longest with decisions, I continue to have concerns about this initiative.  The IG, the Inspector General's, recent findings regarding provisional ratings decisions at the Los Angeles regional office which found a number of errors was very, very concerning.  I understand the office corrected the inappropriate guidance that was issued to staff in June and is now in the process of correcting any errors in claims which may have been improperly adjudicated.  So this IG report is very, very concerning to many of us.  Can you explain to this Committee the actions that have been taken to remedy the problems in Los Angeles. 

Allison Hickey: Uh, Chairman, I absolute can do that but let me first --

I'm not Bernie Sanders.  I don't give a damn about Allison Hickey whose ass should have been fired long ago.  She was asked a question.  I'm not going to waste my time including her distractions and her efforts to avoid answering by eating up time.She said "the regional office knew in one week."  In one week of implementation, the regional office knew. May 14th

The obvious question there is, if they knew one week after it was implemented, (that would be May 21st) why did the IG find errors June 19th?

If, as Hickey stammer, "they themselves identified within a week," why weren't they fixed.  How incompetent is management at the VA?

I guess the answer to that question was staring at the Committee members (Allison Hickey).

3 veterans at the hearing that I spoke with yesterday self-identified as Democrats but stated that maybe the answer for veterans is to have one party in charge of the Senate and another in charge of the White House?  It was felt that the Committee is largely toothless, offers supposed indignation ("weakly stated," one veteran said) and then smooths over everything with ridiculous comments like Brown's that a lecture is not needed. It was noted that Ranking Member Richard Burr would be better right now as Chair Burr because he's not "playing footsie" with the VA.  Let's move to some of his exchange.

Ranking Member Richard Burr corrected Hickey's claims (lies) that the leadership knew in one week of the LA problems and immediately addressed them.  Under strong questioning from Burr, Hickey did admit that the same mistakes continued to happen for weeks


Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Were provisional decisions included in determining the number of claims VA has completed during the calendar year 2013?

Allison Hickey:  I'm going to ask -- Well -- She's just told me "yes" so I will answer "yes" on behalf of Deputy Under Secretary.  There were 14,000 of those claims which were 3% of all of the claims we had done in the oldest claim initiative which was 67,000 two-years-and-older 512,000 one-year-and-older.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  You - you highlighted 90% quality or accuracy, you used both words.  Last week, the American Legion testified and I quote, "VA's accuracy statistics from the Monday accuracy reports are not consitent with the review of recently adjudicated claims as conducted by the American Legion.  According to the Legion, they reviewed 260 decisions and found errors in 55%.  Also National Veterans Legal Service Program testified that current error rate was somewhere between 30 and 40% -- in some RO's it's higher.  Are they wrong?

Allison Hickey: Uhm, uh, so Senator Burr, they -- It's an apple and orange discussion, if I may have a moment to clarify that. First of all, let me just state for the record and for every time I talk on this subject anywhere: We will not trade production for quality. It is an and equation.  Both must rise which is why it's 125 and 98.  But there is a very different way the IG and others are looking at issues then we do.  I will tell you that our process has been validated by an external agency --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Ma'am, let me ask my question again: Are they wrong?

Allison Hickey: Uhm.  Uh-uh-uh.  [Laughing] Senator Burr, they are right for the way they look at it, we are right for the way we measure it which is statistically --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: General, General.  They're the customer, aren't they?

Allison Hickey:  Actually, the veteran, the family member and the survivor are my customers, Senator.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Yeah and these are the organizations that represent them --

Allison Hickey:  They are, Senator 

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  -- and -- Should this Committee believe that there's any VSO in America that believes that the accuracy or the quality is at 97% right now?


Allison Hickey:  Uhhhh, Senator Burr, I would ask you to ask them for their opinions, I can't speak for them.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: They testified on it. But that's not necessarily something that computes. 

Allison Hickey:  Senator Burr, I have a statistically valid validated process that goes further --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: I asked -- I asked a very simple question: Are they wrong?  And I guess the answer is "yes" because you're saying your statistics are different than what their review has been. 

Allison Hickey: They have a different process, Senator.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Okay.  According to VA's Monday Morning Workload Reports, there are at least 266,000 appeals that have not been resolved. That's about 100,000 more than were pending five years ago although appeals are not counted in VA's backlog statistics, they represent individuals who have yet to know what benefits they will receive. Do the performance standards for regional office directors and service center managers include how quickly and accurately they're handling appeals

Allison Hickey:  So Senator Burr the answer is -- the simple answer to your question is yes, they do.  However, I would also tell you that a veteran does know our opinion to an answer on their claim.  Uhm, uh, they get and, uh, many cases, they are deriving resources uh-uh associated with that claim already even though they might be appealing only a part in piece of-of our decision.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  So you have a metrics that you use to determine this?

Allison Hickey: We absolutely have metrics on --

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Would you provide that metrics for the Committee?

Allison Hickey:  We will do that, sir.

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  On average, how long have those 266,000 appeals been pending?

Allison Hickey:  Uh, Senator, the Chairman cites some, uh, 800 days so I will, uh, accept th--

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Do you track, does the VA track that?

Allison Hickey:  We do, Senator Burr. 

Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Okay.  At what point is an appeal -- is an appeal considered to be backlogged?

Allison Hickey:  We do not have a backlog number for appeals.


We need to stop it there.  But hopefully you're getting what the press didn't.  The VA does not include "appeals" in the backog.  In April, they came up with the 'clever' (dishonest) policy to just slap decisions on claims -- provisional ratings.  And that moved them out of the backlog.  Every one of those 'provisional ratings' may be appealed.  The VA doesn't care, it doesn't count appeals as part of the 'backlog.'

You'd care if you went from an unacceptable 200 day wait to an 800 day wait.

But the press whores for the VA.  They're too stupid to do their damn job.  This was all apparent at the April 23rd hearing.  I'm not a genius and it was obvious to me then.  This is a con game and veterans are getting very outraged while it continues and people like Senator Sherrod Brown look the other way and insist that the VA doesn't need a lecture.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"9 killed and 15 injured"
"Leahy: In any country, this legal interpretation i..."
"Arrow (Bye-bye Barry)"
"The lying government"
"Lying Photo Ops"
"glenn greenwald's back to power bottom status"
"Look at the Twittering fool"
"The Progressive honkeys can't stop pimping racism"
"Sibel has Glenn's number"
"Glenn Greenwald is a little bitch"
"Glenn gets called out"
"I stand with Sibel"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Disgraceful Barack"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S THE ETERNAL DISGRACE!""

THIS JUST IN! HE'S THE ETERNAL DISGRACE!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CAN'T STOP EMBARRASSING HIMSELF AND THE COUNTRY WHEN HE TRAVELS THE WORLD STAGE.

AND HE'S FACING CRITICISM NOW FOR HIS JUVENILE AND IMMATURE ANTICS AT NELSON MANDELA'S MEMORIAL SERVICE.

BY CONTRAST, FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA CONTINUES TO GARNER PRAISE FOR THE DIGNITY SHE SHOWED.

WHEN THESE REPORTERS POINTED THAT OUT TO BARRY O, HE IMMEDIATELY INSISTED, "THAT WAS MY POINT, GUYS, I WAS TRYING TO MAKE HER LOOK BETTER.  HONEST!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE: 








The above is from a series of photos, said to have been taken this month, to demonstrate Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is 'healthy' or at least still breathing.  Click here for the series of photos at his website, click here for the series at the Patriotic Unino of Kurdistan's media office.  The PUK Media office claims the photos are from "two days ago during a visitation of Hero Ibrahim Ahmed, Iraqi First Lady, to President Talabani in Germany."


For those confused, last December,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.

AFP has two articles.  This one is embarrassing.  This one is solid. Reuters is just embarrassing all the way -- including links that don't work and running a 2010 photo of Jalal.  If the news is these photos, these new photos, why aren't you running them?

So what we have is photos and a claim, at his own site, that his medical team that Jalal's "on the road to a full recovery."

Oh, the lovely liars.

PUK claims the photos are two days old, Jalal's website says they were taken on December 6th and December 8th.

The liars can't even get the basics right.

Let's briefly note the outlets -- AFP and Reuters.  It might be a good idea, if you're noting that 'road to recovery' spin, to also point out that this has been stated repeatedly.  Next week, it will be a full year since Jalal stopped doing his job.  Iraq will have been without a president for a full year.

He's on his road to recovery just doesn't cut it!

Nor do photos of a heavily made up Jalal Talabani.

Hint to those behind the fraud, next time you ply pancake on Jalal's face?  Put him in gloves or put make up on his hands.  His hands and his face need to match or you look like idiots.

And you look like idiots.

A heavily made up Jalal appears in a series of new or 'new' photos.

And who knew he was going through a Mariah Carey phase?

Remember when Mariah would only be photographed from her right side?  Until husband Nick Cannon told her she looked fine from the left as well?

Can we send Nick to Germany to talk to Jalal?

Jalal is not on the road to full recovery.

Like the May photos, he is shown only from the right side.

That would indicate that he still doesn't have control over the left side of his face.

Not that he has control over his right.

If you look at the latest photos, the first thing that stands out after the heavy facial make up is the mouth.  It can't smile.  It can't move.  The lips remain in the same position in every photo.

That's not from the current crop of photos.  It's from the ones they released months ago in May.  Jalal's still being photographed from the right, he's still unable to smile, his mouth apparently can't move because, in the new photos, Hero's all over the place acting like she's keenly listening to what he's saying but his mouth never moves in one photo after another.  It's always the same tight line, always drooping down at the end.


Jalal's a fat man.  He's also a vain man.  When he travels to the United States, for examples, he takes luggage, lots and lots of luggage.  He doesn't like repeating even a tie when he's doing official visits.


So for two days this month, he was fine with being photographed in the same jogging suit?

That really doesn't sound like Jalal.

The photos yet again look posed.

The photos yet again indicate Jalal has not recovered and does not have full control (or partial) over his body movements.  If you missed the photos in May, click here.

Jalal may be improving slightly.

Road to recovery?

He's been on it for nearly a year.  He's not moving at a fast pace.

He's clearly unable to do his job duties.

The Constitution called for him to be replaced back in January.

Article 75, Third Clause, "The Vice President shall replace the President of the Republic in the event that the post of the President becomes vacant for any reason whatsoever.  The Council of Representatives must elect a new President within a period not to exceed thirty days from the date of the vacancy."

Instead, the Talabani family has pulled the wool over the Iraqi people's eyes, played them for fools.

Questions need to be asked including when did Jalal stop receiving his presidential salary?

Or is he still receiving it?

In 2013, he has not performed one presidential duty.  In 2013, he has not set foot in Iraq.

The Iraqi people have been lied to, they need to now know the Talabani family has not also committed economic fraud in 2013.

The fraud also demonstrates that Iraq is not a Constitutional republic.

The Constitution is meaningless in Iraq.

By the end of 2007, Article 140 of the Constitution was supposed to be implemented -- per the Constitution.  Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki didn't do it in 2007 and has refused to obey the Constitution since.  The 2010 parliamentary elections demonstrated that the Constitution did not matter as US President Barack Obama ordered the brokering of a contract (The Erbil Agreement) to go around the Constitution and give second place Nouri a second term as prime minister.  As 2011 drew to a close, Nouri began his attack on Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi which included charges against him and a kangaroo court trial -- this despite the fact that Parliament refused to strip al-Hashemi of his office.  Per the Constitution, he has to be stripped of his office to stand trial.

There's talk of amending the Constitution, there's talking of tossing it for a new one.

Why bother?

No one's following it currently.

The Iraqi Constitution allows free speech and the right to assembly but Nouri's forces attack protesters for protesting.  The Iraqi Constitution allows freedom of speech but Nouri's forces attempt to strong-arm journalists into signing statements declaring that they won't report.




Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"These days, you can profit from foreign government..."
"O Little Town of Bethlehem -- Francis A. Boyle"
"The Weinsteins, Old Man Redford and Tom Hanky"
"Mandela and Truth"
"Baracka-blah-blah"
"joan collins"
"Dan Rather is a liar and Raw Story is a fool"
"Shut up, Jim Hightower"
"The awful Dianne Feinstein"
"Ditzy Jase gets it wrong again"
"Rosemary's Baby and China"
"He sinks lower"
"THIS JUST IN! LIKE A ROCK!"

THIS JUST IN! LIKE A ROCK!

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



TODAY'S JUST RELEASED NBC - WALL ST. JOURNAL POLL FINDS THAT 54% OF AMERICANS DISAPPROVE OF THE JOB BARRY O IS DOING AS CELEBRITY IN CHIEF.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "LOOK, GUYS, GIVE ME A BREAK.  I'M JUST TRYING TO UPDATE MY RESUME, PRINT A FEW COPIES AND GET THE HELL UP OUT HERE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


I blame the western press and I blame government officials -- especially US government officials. For what? For the news Amal Sakr (Al-Monitor) reports today, the Iraqi government rejects women's shelters:

"Living in a jungle ruled by men." This is how Dahaa al-Rawi, the chair of the Women's Committee in the local Baghdad government, described the status of women in Iraq. Women are marginalized and their abilities unrecognized — domestically, socially and politically. Women are subjected to violence of all forms and murder on an ongoing basis.

"We do not have any statistics about the status of women, or the daily violence that they are subjected to," Rawi said, adding, "In Baghdad's local government council, they view us as merely a secondary committee that does not play an important role."

Speaking to Al-Monitor, Rawi said that the same also applies to Iraq's state institutions and ministries concerned with statistics or women's issues. None of them have accurate data showing the extent of violence against women in Iraq.
In an attempt to obtain figures showing the depth of the problem, Al-Monitor spoke with Dr. Marwa Mohammed, who works at Al-Yarmouk Hospital in Baghdad. According to Mohammed, Al-Yarmouk's emergency room receives an average of two cases per day of women who have been beaten by their husbands or another family member.
"The most dangerous cases we receive are pregnant women who have been severely beaten. This exposes them to the risk of miscarriage," Mohammed added. She noted that in most cases the beatings cause internal bleeding, which leaves bruises that need a long time to heal.

Nouri's government rejects women's shelters -- even the stooge he has as Minister of Women rejects women's shelters.

Dropping back to Sunday, November 24th,  "Umed Sami (Kirkuk Now) reports that Monday kicks off Domestic Violence Awareness Week which actually lasts two weeks and that there are many different actions because there are '20 women's rights organizations in Kirkuk'."  And now moving to Tuesday, November 26th:

The Kurdistan Regional Government noted the kick off on Monday and that Monday was International Day Against Violence Against Women (that's a United Nations day around the world).  KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani addressed a large group of men and women -- including ministers of government, MPs in the Iraqi Parliament and the Kurdish Parliament, regional official and diplomats --  in Erbil.  Barzani noted that violence against women is violence against human rights and the issue is not a 'women's issue' but one for the entire community to work on.  He called for justice which means changing the laws in the KRG so that the light penalities for husbands killing wives are eliminated (he noted the KRG law currently mirrors the law for the rest of Iraq).  He noted that they need to address the issue of child brides and the practice of female genital mutilation.  He cited figures finding that reported violence against women had fallen in 2012 but he stated that the gains were not enough and the community needed to work harder to address the issue.

Iraq's Human Rights Ministry also had an event.  Compare the photos.  Even if you can't read Arabic, you'll note many things.  For example, the Baghdad turnout?  Not that impressive in terms of numbers. The KRG photo displays ten packed rows of attendees (and the photo cuts off with the impression that there are rows not displayed in the photo).  In Baghdad, they take up about six rows -- with a lot of empty spaces.  In the KRG, you see shiny, healthy hair on the heads of men and women.  In Baghdad, most women have their hair covered.  (Four brave women on the second row do not cover their hair.) Nouri's Prime Minister of Iraq.  Did he address the gathering?

Nope. 

He couldn't be bothered with the topic.  

Ibithal al-Zaidi was present.  Declaring she (now) believes in equality between the sexes -- based on the law and religions.   Whatever.  

How important was the event?  

They don't even bother to finish the press release -- it cuts off before the end of the release.

Nouri should have been present.  By refusing to show up for the Baghdad event, let alone speak at it, he made clear that violence against women does not qualify as a serious issue to him.

We're not done with the KRG yet.  Al Mada reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani issued a statement decrying violence against women saying it was inhumane and against the basic principals of humanity.  He noted the sacrifices and actions Iraqi women had taken part in to create a better Iraq and called for rights to live safely and free from oppression, discrimination and violence.

We called Nouri out repeatedly in the last two weeks as he remained silent (here for another example).  Where was the western press?  Where was the US government?

You know it doesn't take a million dollar weapon or a bombing campaign for the US State Dept in any of their multitude of useless blathering briefings to bring up Iraq and note that it's very disappointing when the prime minister of a country can't decry violence against women even during the two weeks when the country is supposedly decrying violence against women.

And what's even worse is that the US State Dept is always making these pretense that they care about women.  Right now, they also have two women as spokespeople: Marie Harf and Jen Psaki.  But the Dept is silent as women suffer Iraq.  The State Dept funnels a billion-plus dollars -- US tax dollars -- into Iraq each year and it can't say a damn word while Iraqi women suffer.


Last March,  Rania Khalek (Muftah) noted it wasn't always women under attack in Iraq:

Contrary to popular imagination, Iraqi women enjoyed far more freedom under Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist government than women in other Middle Eastern countries. In fact, equal rights for women were enshrined in Iraq’s Constitution in 1970, including the right to vote, run for political office, access education and own property. Today, these rights are all but absent under the U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki.
Prior to the devastating economic sanctions of the 1990s, Iraq’s education system was top notch and female literacy rates were the highest in the region, reaching 87 percent in 1985. Education was a major priority for Saddam Hussein’s regime, so much so that in 1982 Iraq received the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) award for eradicating illiteracy. But the education system crumbled from financial decay under the weight of the sanctions pushing over 20 percent of Iraqi children out of school by 2000 and reversing decades of literacy gains. Today, a quarter of Iraqi women are illiterate, more than double the rate for Iraqi men (11 percent). Female illiteracy in rural areas alone is as high as 50 percent.
Women were integral to Iraq’s economy and held high positions in both the private and public sectors, thanks in large part to labor and employment laws that guaranteed equal pay, six months fully paid maternity leave and protection from sexual harassment. In fact, it can be argued that some of the conditions enjoyed by working women in Iraq before the war rivaled those of working women in the United States.

The US government is directly responsible for the destruction of women's rights but it can't say a word?


In November,  the CEO of Thomson Reuters Foundation, Monique Villas, (at Huffington Post) noted violence against women:



The picture is grim. A perception poll of gender experts by the Thomson Reuters Foundation shows that the rise of political Islam across Arab Spring countries has had a real impact on secularism. Almost three years after popular uprisings toppled autocratic leaders in one of the most conservative corners of the world, three out of five Arab Spring countries rank among the bottom five states for women's rights
Many political gains for women have been lost. In fact, women are struggling to preserve their dignity, and far from progressing, they are now fighting to preserve the rights they had before the Arab Spring. 

[. . .]

Life is not much better in Iraq, second-worst country for women's rights in the region, according to the survey.
The experts said that radical Islamisation of society, sectarian violence and a reaction against what many see as western imperialism in the years after the 2003 invasion were all having a devastating impact on women.
The "war on terror" has made widows of 1.6 million Iraqi women, leaving them without income and with few prospects of employment. In Iraq, only 14.5 percent of the entire female population is employed, and women have lost their voice in political circles. Mass displacement has made them vulnerable to trafficking and sexual violence.

Again, it wouldn't cost the US tax payers a damn cent if the State Dept could get it off it's do-nothing ass and raise the issue of Iraqi women in a briefing.  If they did, it would then be up to the press to amplify the remarks and faced with such coverage -- if the press did their job -- Iraqi women might get a domestic violence shelter or two.  If the US government would actual strings in place, actual conditions for aid or on the military hardware they're still supplying Iraq with, Iraqi women could get shelters across Iraq.

But the US government doesn't care about Iraqi women.  Secretary of State John Kerry is wrapping up his first year in the post and doing so having failed to ever acknowledge Iraqi women despite the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are the two biggest items in the State Dept budget.

Are we surprised that the State Dept's done such a poor job for Iraqi women?

No.

April 17th, Secretary Kerry appeared before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.   Let's note Kerry on women from that hearing:

Ava here, filling in for Trina.  I'm covering a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The witness they heard from was Secretary John Kerry.
They didn't really discuss the budget at all.
I will note one exchange.  It was very disappointing.  It started off interesting.  And then . . . Well, here's the exchange.

US House Rep William Keating: Thank you for being here.  I know that both of us, although we're here, part of us are still back home in Massachusetts this morning.  Getting to the theme of this morning's hearing, your theme of small smart investments is right on point, I couldn't agree with it more.  One of those areas that the administration and you have been involved with personally and Secretary [Hillary] Clinton had been involved with was really dealing with issues like the National Action Plan for Woman Peace and Security in the World.  And I think that we can't approach the broader issues of poverty and the rule of law and education and health care around the world without dealing with these issues, they're core to dealing with any advancement in that area. And, furthermore, I think they're the smartest way to make some of these investments for our dollar and to be effective. So I'd like you to, just two things, if you could, comment on.  One is generally comment on your ability to deal with these gender equality advancement issues with women around the world and, number two, particularly, gender-based violence.  You know it, in your capacity, you knew it when you were a prosecutor, as I did.  They know no borders or bounds when you're dealing with violence based on gender-based violence.  And internationally, the violence that so many women experience take many different forms -- from rape to early forced marriage to harmful traditional practices that occur such as genital mutilation, 'honor' killings, acid violence, sexual violence and contact -- and I could go on and on and on. But can you comment on the Department's first-time ever strategy to prevent gender-based violence globally?  Those are the two things I'd like you to comment on, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary John Kerry:  Well, thank you, Congressman.  It's good to see you and thanks for our shared feelings about what's happened up in Boston. Secretary Clinton did a great job of putting this issue squarely on everybody's agenda and I'm determined to make certain that we live up to that standard -- if not exceed it.  And we're in -- I think we're in a good start to do that in terms of trafficking issues and other things.  But in-in London last week at the G8 Ministers meeting, Foreign Minister [William] Hague of Great Britain made the centerpiece of our meeting sexual violence as a tool of war.  And we had a meeting, we had outside representatives come in who helped to raise the profile of that and, in my judgment, it was a very valuable moment for people to realize that this is going to be held accountable as a War Crime.  And we're going to keep this gender-based violence front and center as we go forward.  I would also say to everybody, when I was in Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago, when Anne Smedinghoff was my control officer, she helped put together a remarkable meeting of ten entrepreneurs, ten women in Afghanistan who are struggling against all of the resistance culturally and historically in that country to stand up and start businesses and-and help girls go to schools, help women be able to be entrepreneurs.  A remarkable process.  And the courage that they exhibited deserves everybody's support.  It would certainly get ours in the State Dept.  And we're going to continue this in many different ways over the next years in the State Dept -- you'll see us continue it. 

US House Rep William Keating:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  In terms of accountability, could that also include standards that might be tied to aid to some extent?

Secretary John Kerry:  You know, Congressman, there are some places that lend themselves to that kind of conditionality and there are others that just don't. And I don't think there's a blanket cover all of explaining a set of standards that's going to apply everywhere.  In some countries, the standards could actually be counter-productive and you don't get done what you're trying to do.  It really depends on what is the package, what's the nature of the program, and I think you have to be pretty customized in that approach. 


Excuse me, we can't impose a standard?


Ava goes no to note a State Dept April 11th statement which opens:

G8 Foreign Ministers met in London on 10-11 April. The G8 represents a group of nations with a broad range of global interests and with a collective responsibility and opportunity to use its influence to address some of the most pressing issues in the world.
Foreign Ministers addressed a number of international issues, challenges and opportunities that impact on global peace, security and prosperity. Beyond exchanging views and coordinating actions on the pressing foreign policy issues of the day, they made a number of commitments as set out below and in the separate Declaration on the Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict.


Empty talk from an empty department.

We got more empty talk from the Dept  November 13th when the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs testified to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa -- see the November 13th "Iraq snapshot," the November 14th "Iraq snapshot" and in the November 15th  "Iraq snapshot."

If the US government is telling the truth, the seven are no longer in Iraq.  This was revealed in the final exchange of the hearing, when US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee joined the Subcommittee and, after taking a brief break, began her five minute round of questioning.  Two notes.  "[. . .]"?  We don't have time to include their praise of one another and maybe if that praise hadn't been used to waste time then Sheila Jackson Lee would not have had to ask for more time?  Second "pointed purse"?  I have no idea.  I turned to Ava and asked, "Did she just say 'pointed purse'?"  That's what Ava heard as well.  Who knows what she said, that's what it sounded like.  With that, here's the exchange.


US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee:   [. . .]  But there are hostages in Iraq that we must have now.  There's documentation that those hostages are there by our French allies, by the United Nations and other supportive groups and information.  I can't imagine with the wealth of sophisticated intelligence authorities that we have, that we have funded who have a vast array of information about Americans  cannot pinpoint where starving Iranians, loved ones [are] whose families are trying to save their lives after being on a hunger strike for 73 days.  And so I would ask this question of you, already knowing about your heart and your concern, I will not judge you, I already know that you're committed to getting this right/  Will you -- will you demand of Maliki, not next week or months from now, but can we expect in the next 48 hours a call to the head of the government of Iraq demanding the release of these hostages and demanding their release now?  Or the documented, undeniable evidence that they are not held in Iraq?  Second, would you be engaged with -- or  the Secretary [of State John Kerry] be engaged with -- and I have spoken to Secretary Kerry, I know his heart -- with Maliki to demand the security of those in Camp Ashraf  for now and forever until a relocation to a homeland, a place where their relatives are or where they desire to be? [. . .]

Brett McGurk:  [. . .] We can pinpoint where the people are and I'd like to follow up with you on that.  The seven are not in Iraq.  But I will guarantee in my conversations with Maliki on down, the safety and the security of Camp Ashraf, Camp Liberty, where the residents are, the government needs to do everything possible to keep those poeople safe  but they will never be safe until they're out of Iraq.  And we all need to work together -- the MEK, us, the Committee, everybody, the international community -- to find a place for them to go.  There's now a UN trust fund, we've donated a million dollars and we're asking for international contributions to that fund for countries like Albania that don't have the resources but are willing to take the MEK in.  And we need to press foreign captials to take them in because until they're out, they're not going to be safe and we don't want anyone else to get hurt.  We don't want anymore Americans to get hurt in Iraq, we don't want anymore Iraqis to get hurt in Iraq  and we don't want any more residents of Camp Liberty to get hurt in Iraq and until they're out of Iraq, they're not going to be safe.  This is an international crisis and we need international help and support. 


US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee:  May I follow -- May I just have a minute more to follow up with Mr. McGurk, Secretary McGurk?  And I hear the passion in your voice but let me just say this. We're in an open hearing.  You know where they are.  Who is going to rescue them?  Whose responsibility will it be to get them from where they are into safe haven?  Because otherwise, we're leaving -- we're leaving Maliki now without responsibility.  We're saying, and you're documenting that they're not there.  Let me just say that when my government speaks, I try with my best heart and mind to believe it.  But I've got to see them alive and well to believe that they're not where I think they are, they're in a pointed purse.  I'm glad to here that but I want them to be safe but I want them to be in the arms of their loved ones or at least able to be recognized by their loved one that they're safe somewhere.  So can that be done in the next 48 hours?  Can we have a-a manner that indicates that they are safe?

Brett McGurk:  I will repeat here a statement that we issued on September 16th and it's notable and I was going to mention this in my colliquy with my Congressman to my left, that within hours of the attack, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Score issued a statement praising the attack.  We issued a statement on September 16th calling on the government of Iran to use whatever influence it may have with groups that might be holding these missing persons to secure their immediate release.  And I can talk more about details and the status of these individuals.  And I've briefed some members of the Subcommittee. I'd be happy to follow up. 


Guess what?

No one believes Brett McGurk.  It's as though the world is his first wife and he's insisting he's not screwing Gina Chon.  No one believes him.  Imagine that, a cheater's word not being his bond.

The United Nations Human Rights' Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued the following today:


GENEVA (9 December 2013) – A group of United Nations independent experts today called on the Government of Iraq to establish the fate and whereabouts of seven residents of Camp Ashraf, who were allegedly abducted last September after an attack in which 52 persons were killed. More than 3,000 Iranian exiles have been based at the Ashraf refugee camp near Baghdad since the 1980s.
The human rights experts expressed serious concern about the lack of information from the Iraqi authorities regarding the results of ongoing investigations into the attack.
“We call upon the Government of Iraq to speed up the investigations in order to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the individuals,” the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances said, while recalling that, at some point, Iraqi forces allegedly admitted having these individuals in custody.
The facts are still being established three months after the violent event. However, there are allegations that the attack and the abduction of the seven residents of Camp Ashraf, including six women, were conducted by Iraqi security forces. It has also been alleged that it is impossible for anyone to enter Camp Ashraf without the cooperation of Iraq forces.
All of those killed reportedly died as a consequence of gunshot wounds, mainly in the head or neck. A number of those killed were found with their hands tied, an act apparently committed prior to their deaths. Some victims were allegedly shot while fleeing or seeking medical assistance after having been wounded.
“International law clearly requires Governments to ensure that all allegations of killings are investigated in a prompt, effective and impartial manner, irrespective of who the perpetrator is,” the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, noted. “Failure to do so is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
The group of experts stressed that “The impunity with which these crimes have been committed is particularly flagrant given the severity of the offences and the alleged evidence of engagement by Iraqi forces in the commission of these crimes.” In their view, “the State has an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, protect, investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of violence, including those perpetrated against women, and to ensure their rights to be treated with dignity.”
“The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has consistently held that the detention in Camp Ashraf is arbitrary,” said Mads Andenas, who currently heads the expert body. “The Iraqi Government has a particular responsibility to protect the detainees against human rights violations such as the recent deaths and abductions, and must now instigate independent investigations, end the detention regime, and in the meantime provide effective protection to those who remain in detention.”
The UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, echoed the urgent call to establish the fate and whereabouts of the seven Iranian exiles. “Detention in secret places can facilitate the perpetration of torture and other ill-treatment and can in itself constitute a form of such treatment,” he warned.
Concerns have been raised that the seven missing residents of Camp Ashraf may be forcibly returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, where they might be at risk of being persecuted, tortured or subjected to other forms of ill-treatment. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the seven missing residents are asylum-seekers enjoying the status of protected persons.“Iraq’s obligations under international law are clear, the Government shall not expel, return, extradite or in any other way transfer a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture,” Mr. Mendez underscored.
The UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, noted that this is the third time that the residents of Camp Ashraf have been subjected to physical assault. “I condemn the lack of proper investigation of the massacres and the impunity of those responsible for them,” he said.
Mr. de Zayas pointed out that “Grave crimes of this nature, and the impunity that has accompanied them, entail violations of numerous international treaty provisions and constitute an assault on the rule of law, an affront to the international community and a threat to the international order.”
“The families of the killed and disappeared are entitled to the right to know what happened to their loved ones, and to adequate reparation for the suffering endured,” he stated.
The group of experts urged the Iraqi authorities “to take all necessary measures to clarify the whereabouts of the missing individuals, guarantee their safety and rights, and prevent their extradition to Iran.”

The United Nations Special Rapporteurs are part of what it is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the United Nations Human Rights, is the general name of the independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms of the Human Rights Council that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. They are charged by the Human Rights Council to monitor, report and advise on human rights issues. Currently, there are 37 thematic mandates and 14 mandates related to countries and territories, with 72 mandate holders. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Learn more: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx


UPI covers it here and here, World Bulletin covers it here. None of them note Brett McGurk's testimony where he claimed to know where the 7 were.

If McGurk were considered believable, don't you think the United Nations would be pressing the US government to reveal where the 7 were?


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"At least 26 killed in Iraq today and another forty..."
"I don't understand The National Review"
"Universal Access to Family Planning Services is a ..."
"War Resisters: Our Real American Patriots (Mike Pa..."

"revenge (the good)"

"December movies"

"Lynne continues to suffer because of Barack"

"Aziz is hilarious"

"Answer: I die laughing"

"The forever embarrassing Barack"

"Protect your laptop"

"NPR and music?"

"ObamaCare premiums"

"Thank you, Michelle Obama"

"He doesn't know how to behave on the world stage"

"THIS JUST IN! HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE AT A FUNERAL!"