Saturday, May 31, 2014

THIS JUST IN! CARNEY PREPARES FOR NEW LIFE!


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


IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THESE REPORTERS, CARNEY EXPLAINED, "I JUST GOT TIRED OF ALL THE BULLS**T, YOU KNOW?  EVERY DAY I STOOD UP AND LIED AND HAD TO LIE AGAIN THE NEXT DAY.  IT GOT SO BAD THAT I COULDN'T EVEN JERK OFF ANYMORE BECAUSE I FOUND MYSELF SO DISGUSTING.  WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO IS SPEND SOME TIME WITH MYSELF NOW, GET TO KNOW MYSELF AGAIN, RUB A COUPLE OUT, YOU KNOW?"

ASKED WHAT HE WOULD MISS THE MOST, JAY CARNEY SAID, "NOT ONE DAMN THING.  NOT. ONE. DAMN. THING."





Do you really think the only failure at VA currently is the issue of secret lists?

If you're a gasbag or a reporter who never does any work, you may think so.  Those of us who've done the work, who've attended these hearings, know the wait list is only one of many failures at the VA.  We also grasp that the VA has operated under a culture of secrecy.  They tell Congress there's progress, Congress requests proof of that, proof is not supplied and, if the veterans community is lucky, a press expose reveals the VA is lying.  Without that expose, the Congress is repeatedly stonewalled by Congress.

With the exception of field hearings, I believe I've only missed three Congressional VA hearings since 2006. I'm really not in the mood for lies and I'm especially not in the mood for lies from people who didn't bother to ever attend even one hearing in the last eight years.

On the Thursday morning hearing, Ruth reported on it in "Blind veteran describes computer issues" and I covered it in yesterday's snapshot and it's noted at the end of "VA did not make providing quality care a primary goal" and "A few comments on Senator Richard Burr."  We were going to cover it today. Hopefully, we'll have room and time.  But Shinseki's resignation and the press spin means we have to go the second hearing yesterday, yesterday afternoon's hearing of the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs.

First, let's note the statement Chair Jeff Miller issued today:


May 30, 2014



WASHINGTON, D.C.— Following the announcement of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki’s resignation, Chairman Jeff Miller released the following statement.

"Everybody knows Eric Shinseki is an honorable man whose dedication to our country is beyond reproach. I thank him for his legacy of service to our nation. Unfortunately, Shinseki's tenure at the Department of Veterans Affairs will forever be tainted by a pervasive lack of accountability among poorly performing VA employees and managers, apparent widespread corruption among medical center officials and an unparalleled lack of transparency with Congress, the public and the press. Appropriately, Shinseki is taking the brunt of the blame for these problems, but he is not the only one within VA who bears responsibility. Nearly every member of Shinseki's inner circle failed him in a major way. Those who surrounded Shinseki shielded him from crucial facts and hid bad news reports, in the process convincing him that some of the department’s most serious, well documented and systemic issues were merely isolated incidents to be ignored. Eric Shinseki trusted the VA bureaucracy, and the VA bureaucracy let him down.”

“Right now, VA needs a leader who will take swift and decisive action to discipline employees responsible for mismanagement, negligence and corruption that harms veterans while taking bold steps to replace the department’s culture of complacency with a climate of accountability. VA’s problems are deadly serious, and whomever the next secretary may be, they will receive no grace period from America’s veterans, American taxpayers and Congress.” – Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs


I think that's a fair assessment.  I don't think many -- if any -- believe Shinseki set out to deceive or that he was trying to damage veterans.  He fought some members of Congress (Senator Jim Webb) to get those suffering from Agent Orange the help they need.  That's a major accomplishment and no one can take that away from Shinseki.  We gave him credit for that.  When there were some veterans groups attacking him because a veteran got arrested and would be prosecuted by a relative of Shinseki, we stated here that Eric Shinseki is responsible for his role as Secretary of the VA and he is not responsible for family members carrying out actions in other jobs and positions.

Shinseki couldn't provide oversight.  He was said to be to easy to please.  He didn't dig for answers.  The next person who heads the VA has to be determined and needs a new staff who will repeatedly probe various programs and various medical centers to ensure that problems within the VA are known at the top.

Now for yesterday afternoon's hearing.  We're going to the second panel and to Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations Linda Halliday.

Disability claims.  How's that going?  Shinseki had said it would be down to 125 days by 2015 -- Fiscal Year 2015 which means October of this year.  Mere months away.  And the number of days currently to process these disability claims?  249.

But, somehow, by magic?, in five months, that 249 is supposed to drop to 125.

This is part of the VA problem and where's the press on it?

With Quick Start claims-processing, Halliday explained, VBA had managed, over the last two years to drop down to 249 days -- from 291.  But in five months, they're going to magically halve the current 249 and have 125?

That's going to be some feat to pull off.  (No, they're not going to meet the deadline.)

If you paid attention to her testimony, you saw how it might happen.  VBA wanted to shave off 41 days -- just not count them -- and claim they didn't count.  That's the sort of nonsense that goes to a lack of accountability.  VA gets the numbers they want by lying about the numbers.  That needs to stop immediately.  You can't shave off 41 days, pretend they never took place, just because it will give you better numbers.  Honesty is a core value that needs to be stressed, taught and reinforced at the VA.

Quick Star has not improved the number of days for these claims -- despite having "quick" in the title -- but maybe it's done something with accuracy?

No.

In 2011, the accuracy rate was 62%.  Last year, they raised that to 69% which might seem good except the October 1st deadline, when Fiscal Year 2015 kicks off?  Shinseki had pledged Quick Start would have reached 98% accuracy by that point.  So in five months, watch for it, the accuracy rate is supposed to jump from 69% to 98% on Quick Start's disability claims.

Quick Start aside, the VA's shell game with the backlog.  We called that out when it was presented in a hearing as the big new plan that was going to save every veteran.  Briefly, slap a ruling on a claim and then the claim isn't in the backlog!  No, but it may be in the appeals system.  And that's what's happened.  That is now the fast growing segment on disability claims.  The press is beginning to notice but mainly because VSOs are raising the issue.  But when this came up and we called it out here I noted at one point that if an error was made in the favor of a veteran it should be like a Monopoly card "Bank error in your favor."  And this led to e-mails about how the government couldn't afford it and I noted that the more likely scenario was veterans getting underpayment not overpayments.  In her testimony, Halliday addressed inaccurate claims that had been re-decided.  Here are the amounts through July 2012:  veterans were overpaid $463,000 and veterans were underpaid $2.8 million.

You can keep that mind as we note this exchange from the hearing. Chair Jon Runyan is the Subcommittee Chair.


Chair Jon Runyan: As you know, while VBA is reporting timeliness an equal, if not greater, concern is the accuracy for each veteran. VBA is looking at hundreds of thousands of claims. And the veteran is looking at one and only one. Ms. Halliday, accuracy, as highlighted in your testimony, is a serious concern.  I'd like to also ask you a question about of VBA's quality components Start.  You noted that VBA's Start program has several classification errors such as benefit entitlement, decision documentation/notification and administrative.  Mr. Murphy [VA's Thomas Murphy, from the hearing's first panel] responded to an inquiry of Star's failure to count error incidents with potential to effect veterans benefits such as when a claims folder lacked required evidence including medical examination or an opinion needed to make an accurate decision.  Can you comment on that?

Linda Halliday: Yes, I would appreciate that.  The OIG [Office of Inspector General] uses a broader definition of what constitutes an error.  We report errors that effect veterans benefits as well as those that have the potential to effect veterans benefits in the future if left uncorrected. We think this is important.  It's a veteran-centric approach. We do not feel that the Start program counts all of its errors.  There is a disagreement between what OIG considers an error and how VBA calculates its accuracy rate. I have a couple of examples here that we think might help you understand.  VBA does not consider an incorrect disability evaluation to be a benefit entitlement error unless the error impacted the veterans overall combined disability evaluation.  However, OIG would identify this case as an error because it has the potential to effect the future benefits if left undetected.  And that also has a corresponding effect -- it could effect other programs too as the ratings change.  Also, cases where VBA staff simply do not request or significantly delay requesting the mandatory routine future examinations to determine whether the temporary 100% disability rating should continue, we clearly call an error.  We see a significant financial impact associated with not managing those claims appropriately.  


Okay, right there is where the gas bags need to be paying attention.

Cooked books?  How did they get to that point?

With a long-standing practice of weaseling the truth.

The OIG is the watchdog for the VA.  If they're calling it an error, it's an error.  Stop fighting the terms and definitions.  More plainly: Stop lying to make yourselves look better.

Tolerating these lies encourages more fudging and more dishonesty.

No Department should lie.  But with the VA, the lies just never end.  The next Secretary of the VA should make the announcement that what the OIG defines as an error will be the same definition that the VA will use.

Some of the gas bags are blaming it on a "vacationing Congress."  Gasbag Brent Budowsky (at The Hill) insists,  "Congress, deeply enmeshed in another one of its many ludicrous recesses of vacationing and fundraising, successfully demanded the head of the general." While Memorial Day was Monday, I've sat through three Congressional hearings this week.  The House Veterans Affairs Committee -- in full and in Subcommittees -- has held three hearings this week.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

Friday, May 30, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HIS POWDER PUFF FOOTBALL INJURY!

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TRIED TO TAKE BACK CENTER STAGE YESTERDAY WHEN HE WENT OFF BOOK TO ANNOUNCE HE HAD PLAYED FOOTBALL (STOP LAUGHING) AT A YOUNG AGE (3?) AND HAD A CONCUSSION.

MOST AMERICANS HAD NO IDEA THAT THE WORLD OF POWDER PUFF FOOTBALL WAS SO ROUGH AND TUMBLE.

WHEN THESE REPORTERS ATTEMPTED TO QUESTION HIM ABOUT THIS ALLEGED CONCUSSION AND ALLEGED FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE, JAY CARNEY SAID IT WASN'T POSSIBLE.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL INSISTED "THE O" WAS TOO BUSY BECAUSE HE WAS ABOUT TO SPEAK TO A GROUP OF FORMER SOLDIERS WITH T.B.I. AND WOULD BE EXPLAINING THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD T.B.I. AS WELL BECAUSE HE USED TO PLAY SOLDIERS IN A SANDBOX WHEN HE WAS SIX AND WATCHED THE G.I. JOE CARTOON WHILE STONED THROUGHOUT COLLEGE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night, there was no accountability from the VA for their actions. There was even an attempt by the VA to insist that the Phoenix secret list was not, in fact, secret from the VA.

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Congressman, I don't think these lists were secret --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  How did you not find them, Dr. Lynch?  You were there.

Dr. Thomas Lynch: I did find them, Congressman!

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  How many were on the list?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Pardon?

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  You told me you didn't even look at this list.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  I told you we didn't document the numbers.  I told you we were aware --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  You saw the list?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: We were aware of the problem.

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  Why didn't you report to the press and to Mr. Shinseki and to the President of the United States that there were 1100 veterans waiting for care on that list?  Did you tell anybody about this?  You waited 35 days.  35 days.  You said that you care about veterans, you care about them, they waited on a list, languishing!

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Congressman, I was focused on trying to improve the process --

US House Rep tim Huelskamp:  What about the 1100 veterans?  So you knew about these veterans that were waiting for care --

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, I wish I had identified the number of veterans and we could have moved forward more quickly.

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  Did you try to do anything to get care for these veterans, 1100 veterans, waiting?  Some of them might have been on the list that died.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, we identified the processes and we put people on the ground --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  Yes or no?  Did you do anything for those 1100 veterans?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, I put in place an understanding of the process which allowed us --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  They are still waiting for treatment. Sir, I think that is your answer.  I yield back to the Chairman.


Again, that's from Wednesday night's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on the VA's inability to provide the Committee with information in a timely and accurate manner.  US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Committee Chair, US House Rep Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member.

The Committee held from one panel which was comprised of VA's Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Clinical Operations Dr. Thomas Lynch; the VA's Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs Joan Mooney; and the VA's Congressional Relations Officer Michael Huff.


Inability to provide information?

Since March 14, 2013, US House Rep Tim Huelskamp has been asking for a list of "those who had been punished."  He still hasn't gotten the list.

"Meanwhile, the bonuses continue,"  Huelskamp noted.  "You realize, the information that we have, this is from a website source, we can't get it from your agency, but at Phoenix an $843,000 worth of bonuses. So it wasn't just the director.  It was over a two year period.  My question, what we haven't received yet is the listing of those who lost their bonuses for failures in the system?  Who are we going to hold accountable?"

Inability to provide information?

As Ruth reported on the hearing the VA has also been denying Congress access to VA employees.  Ranking Member Mike Michaud explained to Joan Mooney that when the Committee requested testimony from subject matter experts, these experts aren't allowed to testify.

Ranking Member Mike Michaud:  Okay, we have an e-mail and we'll be glad to share it with you, Ms. Mooney, from a subject matter expert saying that that is the policy of the VA.  Now we can address that, I brought it to Sloan Gibson's attention, I've talked to the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki] a number of times about the fact that the relationship between the Department [of Veterans Affairs] and this Committee is getting extremely strained because we are not able to get the information that we need to.  We tried to, at the beginning of my term as Ranking Member, we tried to smooth out some of the requests as far as going directly to the subject matter expert.  That has not worked.  And so hopefully, we'll be able to get that working the way it should be working, rebuild our trust and open line of communication.


At this point, there is no trust or open line of communication.  This morning, I noted US House Rep Beto O'Rourke

US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  I hope you will do that.  Another thing that struck me, you were talking about a failure within the VA that resulted from elevating a performance measure into a goal which could possibly have led to the scandal in Phoenix and other -- perhaps other-other parts of the VA.  If the current performance measures are not working what are some recommendations that you have for how we measure performance at our VHA system?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: I-I -- Don't get me wrong, I think that we need to have performance measures.  I think that they need to be tools that help us understand our system.  And I think we need to focus on our primary goal which is: are we seeing veterans, is our system growing, are we providing quality care?  When those become the goals of the system, then you cannot game performance measures.  Performance measures become a tool.  If you ignore them, then you're actually hurting yourself because you're not growing your system like you're supposed to and as a director or an administrator you will fail.


So, according to Lynch's testimony, the goals of the VA were not "seeing veterans" or the growing system or "providing quality care."  If those had "become the goals of the system, then you cannot game performance measures." Performance measures were gamed via secret lists. That happened.

Lynch also told O'Roarke about one of VA's potential "plans."

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Congressman, one of the options we have been discussing internally is whether or not we could partner with the Veterans Service  Organizations and use their membership and use their members as, uh, an opportunity to identify the kind of service we're providing and where they're experiencing delays.  I think there is an opportunity there that clearly needs to be explored further.

The VA gets billions of dollars.  It's proven currently to be inept and criminal.  The answer VA floats is to utilize the labor of the VSOs and the veterans?  With all that money, VA can't provide its own oversight?  It's going to need to tax the VSOs?

And am I the only one who remembers that it was just months ago when the VA was slamming the figures of the American Legion?  But now it wants to use these VSOs to do the job that the VA should be doing on its own?


US House Rep David Jolly noted the "frustration" on the part of the Committee "because we do have an Article I authority to ask the questions but our frustration is rooted in the fact that while we conduct the necessary oversight as part of our Article I responsibility, we continue to hear of a wait list and know that there are wait lists.  And we are held accountable for that, from our constituents.  It's kind of a remarkable process that our constituents hold us responsible for a wait list created by the administration.  And that's probably fair because we have to execute our responsibility."

And if you're not grasping why the Committee is frustrated, let's note this very basic request made in last night's hearing and the VA response to it.



US House Rep Julia Brownley: My constituents and my veterans in my community are also saying there not so concerned about how we got there right now at this moment, but they want to resolve this issue in terms of getting a timely response and making sure that their health care needs -- both physical and mental -- are taken care of.  We've got to figure out the longterm problems, without question.  I think the one question that I wanted to conclude on is that I'm happy that we're going to do sort of a national audit.  I want to understand what that includes.  Does it include the Oxnard CBOC [Community Based Outpatient Clinic] in my district?  Does it go down to that level?  And I want to know 

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  It is my understanding that the audit has now been extended to all VA health care facilities. 

US House Rep Julia Brownley:  Very good.  Very good.  And then, if the VA could provide us with a timeline of every single facility and when this audit is going to take place  and when it will be completed and what are the results of that so that we have a timeline that we can report back to our districts on but so that we can also monitor and watch to make sure that we're covering every single facility across the country. Phoenix has brought a lot to our attention but I'm concerned about so many other facilites across the country.  And if I could get your commitment today that you will provide us with that information, I would be very appreciative.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  I will do my best to get you that information.  I think it is available --

We're going to stop him right there.  "My best"?

The hearing took place because the Committee is having to subpoena the VA for basic information that the VA is required to supply Congress with.  Brownley's request is a basic one and it's nothing more than compiling a list and schedule.  If the VA hasn't already generated that internally, they should get on that.  But there should be "my best" to provide that basic information to Congress.  It should be, "Yes, we will provide that information."


On the audit . . .

US House Rep Mark Takano:  You state, Ms. Mooney, that the -- that you think the audit might be complete within a week -- a week or two?

Joan Mooney:  Yes.

US House Rep Mark Takano:  My question to you may seem a little perverse but how can you get the audit done so quickly given the scale of the department?  And is that a realistic, uhm, turnaround time for you?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, maybe I'll try to answer that based upon what I know about the audits.  Uh, VA has mobilized resources from across our system.  We have asked each of the networks and facilities to provide volunteers to do these audits, to go out and evaluate hospitals so that we can get this audit completed in a timely fashion.

US House Rep Mark Takano:  Now, again, I go back to this issue of-of how good this information is that you're getting from people.  I mean, public officials have called for criminal investigations or turn this over to the Justice Dept.  Are people going to lawyer up, clam up?  I mean is that going to slow down the ability to get information out of people?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  I am sure that there are people who are concerned.  I think that the IG is also our partner in this.  They have also been evaluating facilities -- particularly those with concerns.  They have authorities that we don't have to obtain the information that we need.  

Stop.  The Inspector General's office is not VA's "partner."  The IG exists to investigate VA.  The VA IG is already tasked with investigating over 40 VA medical centers currently.  They released an interim report on Phoenix this week.  They will not be able to release a report on the other medical centers for awhile.  So to claim that the two are working together is false in so many ways.

The IG is independent.  It can't coordinate with VA leadership in an investigation and be independent.  If Lynch understands what's going on an expressed it accurately to the Committee, the Committee needs to immediately take testimony from the IG's office because Lynch's remarks, if accurate, would indicate several walls in place to protect the independence of the IG office have now collapsed.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Bernie Sanders has a Bernie problem, not a Republi..."
"VETERANS: Murray Statement on VA OIG Interim Repor..."
"VA did not make providing quality care a primary g..."
"A few comments on Senator Richard Burr"
"Robert Redford whored himself out for a neoliberal"
"Another VA scandal brought to you by Shinseki"
"US House Rep Corrine Brown should retire"
"Blind veteran describes computer issues"
"Time for a criminal investigation (Wally)"
"Barbara Lee leads nothing"
"Shinseki has to go"
"Alyssa Rosenberg is an embarrassment"
"The Hot Topics Dumpster"
"Can you believe this?"
"He suffers"
"THIS JUST IN! OH, HOW HE SUFFERS!"

Thursday, May 29, 2014

THIS JUST IN! OH, HOW HE SUFFERS!

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WAS ALREADY FACING CALLS TO FIRE ERIC SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF THE VA.  THOSE CALLS HAVE ONLY INCREASED FOLLOWING AN INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, BARRY O RESPONDED, "HOLY CRAP!"

WE, IT TURNED OUT, WERE THE FIRST TO INFORM HIM OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.

"I HATE READING," BARRY O EXPLAINED, LOOKING AWAY BRIEFLY FROM HIS TABLET AND TMZ VIDEOS.

SIGHING, HE NOTED, "THIS DAY IS ALREADY TURNING OUT TO BE A PIECE OF CRAP.  WHY DOES EVERYTHING BAD HAPPEN TO ME?"

THESE REPORTERS SUGGESTED THAT AMERICA'S VETERANS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE SUFFERING MORE THAN HE WAS BUT BARRY O INSISTED, "NO ONE SUFFERS MORE THAN ME.  I'M LIKE JESUS OR AT LEAST MICHAEL JACKSON OR JOAN CRAWFORD."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Let's start with lies in the US, lies from a leader and lies from a pack.

The leader?  US President Barack Obama.  He spoke at West Point today.  Can you spot the lie?


Good morning. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. To General Trainor, General Clarke, and the faculty and staff at West Point -- you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution, and excellent mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army. I'd like to acknowledge the Army's leadership -- Secretary McHugh and General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed -- a proud graduate of West Point himself.
To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line. Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point: as commander-in-chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.
I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for many parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you have made. "Deep inside," he wrote, "we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country." Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran. And I would like to ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute - not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families.
It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom -- for you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counter-terrorism efforts were focused on al Qaida's core leadership. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Four and a half years later, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/28/5853556/text-of-obamas-remarks-at-military.html#storylink=cpy

We have removed our troops from Iraq.  But they didn't all leave at the end of 2011.  And beginning in 2012, Barack sent a troop back in.

At the end of September 2012, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:

 
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.        



Some e-mail and say, "That's a story about Syria!"  Yes, it is.  Do I need to spoon feed you, burp and wipe you?  In the middle of the article on Syria, Arango worked in that detail -- an earth shattering one.  But the Times either ignores reality or buries it deep in a story.

We included Barack's intro because it makes the lie even more appalling. "Thank you, General Caslen"?  It's the same General Caslen who spoke to Arango.-- Robert Caslen.  When he was put over West Point, the press had yet another chance to cover the reality of US troops going back into Iraq but they decided to take a pass.  Again.

It's always interesting to see what the press will cover.  They'll ignore realities about Iraq but they will busy themselves with nonsense and lies.  Right now the TV idiots have spoken on one topic but, as usual, they don't know a damn thing they're talking about.  Rachel Maddow is a liar.  Bob Somerby has documented that repeatedly.  I believe Rebecca nailed the liar long before Bob Somerby ever even knew her name.  (Rachel's or Rebecca's.)  And, of course, it is our own Elaine, committed to peace, who prompted Rachel's on air meltdown.  Simply for asking why -- on the Unfiltered blog -- Rachel kept bringing on this vet and that vet but never, ever a veteran for peace, a veteran against the war?  Elaine was actually being kind.  She honestly thought it was an oversight.  It wasn't an oversight.  Rachel supported the Iraq War.

Point is, a lot of useless trash has a stink that wafts off them.  It's no surprise the stink is back.

Rachel's b.o. spread on her show last night as she attacked Senator Richard Burr for this and that including his blocking Tammy Duckworth's nomination in 2009.  She doesn't know why, Rachel says, but she wants you to know he didn't serve in the military.

Rachel didn't serve either.

She forgets to note that.

I don't think you have to have served in the military to advocate for veterans.  I didn't serve.  That doesn't mean I can't advocate for veterans.

But Rachel has always tried to play manliest man in the room.  No one scratched their crotch and spat harder than Sgt Rachel.  Hoo-ah!

Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  He didn't serve in the military so by Rachel's phantom penis logic he shouldn't be on the House Committee.

I believe Bernie Sanders never served in the military.  (I don't believe he did and his official bio makes no mention of serving in the military.)   He is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee so, by Rachel's phantom penis logic, Bernie shouldn't be Chairing the Senate Committee.  The best Chair the Committee has had in the last ten years was Senator Patty Murray and she didn't serve in the military.

And, let's remember, Barack didn't serve in the US military nor did Bill Clinton.

Military service isn't a pre-requisite for serving in Congress or serving on a Committee or the only measure of service.

Having dealt with that nonsense, let's move over to Rachel's claim that Senator Richard Burr attacked veterans.  In fairness to Rachel (who never is fair to anyone else), many other outlets have also used that 'frame.'  It's inaccurate.  Burr issued a statement on Saturday:



To the Nation’s Veterans,

Over the course of the last few weeks, there has been a great deal of media coverage—rightly so—of the still-unfolding story coming out of the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding secret wait lists and other problems related to appointment scheduling at VA facilities. Last week, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs heard from Secretary Shinseki, representatives of some of the Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), and others.
While a great deal of the media coverage of the hearing has focused on what Secretary Shinseki said, and didn't say, much less has been seen of the testimony of the VSOs that testified. I wanted to take a brief moment to comment on that testimony.
First and foremost, I must recognize and commend the American Legion, National Commander Dan Dellinger, and the American Legion team for taking a principled stand, before the hearing and during it, and calling for leadership change at the VA. It is clear that the Legion has been listening to its membership about the challenges they face in gaining access to care, and has reached the conclusion that "enough is enough" and the status quo is indefensible. The Legion's membership has much to be proud of with the organization they support.

Regrettably, the Legion was alone among the VSOs that testified in taking such a stand. It became clear at the hearing that most of the other VSOs attending appear to be more interested in defending the status quo within VA, protecting their relationships within the agency, and securing their access to the Secretary and his inner circle. But to what end? What use is their access to senior VA staff, up to and including the Secretary, if they do not use their unprecedented access to a Cabinet Secretary to secure timely access to care for their membership? What hope is there for change within the VA if those closest to the agency don't use that proximity for the good of veterans across our country?

I believe the national and local commanders of every VSO have the interests of their members at heart, and take seriously their commitment to their members and their organization. Unfortunately, I no longer believe that to be the case within the Washington executive staff of the VSOs that testified. Last week’s hearing made it clear to me that the staff has ignored the constant VA problems expressed by their members and is more interested in their own livelihoods and Washington connections than they are to the needs of their own members.

I fear that change within the VA will not be possible unless and until these organizations also reconsider their role as well as the nature of their relationship with VA.

Sincerely,

 
 
Richard Burr 


United States Senator


That is not an attack on veterans.

It is a critique of VSO leaders.

He can do that.

He felt the VSOs failed and he said so.

He's allowed to do that.

I criticize VSOs re: Congress all the time here.

It's not a slam on veterans.

Forget any specifics of the argument.  Are VSOs too polite to Congress?

Yes.

That's only controversial if you want to make it controversial.

IAVA has the best standing right now but is that because it's still a new group?  When new leaders emerge in the group will they tone down some of their speaking?

Possibly.

(I don't toss my personal life out there but I'm currently sleeping with a board member of a VSO.  That's all the disclosure prying eyes will get.  But factor that into what follows if you need to.)

When I cover a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing -- House or Senate -- I don't usually note the VSOs unless it's a legislative hearing.  I cover the first panel.  The second panel?  If it pops up in the second day of coverage, it's because a veteran friend calls and says, "Hey, the point ____ was making was important and you should think about including it."

Burr's correct, the VSOs are too respectful.

(Equally true, though I don't consider myself to be the media, it is true we report on the VA hearings in Congress as many Committee members know.  Burr's comment about what got covered in reporting could be a critique of my own work.  He could be finding fault with it.  If it was and he is, he's correct.)

In the past few years, they've had good relations with Committee members (House and Senate).  But it's also true that they're pretty much addressing the same problems over and over, year after year, the VA stalls and blocks or says it will address and doesn't.

If the Senate had a functioning Chair right now -- no, Bernie is not doing a good job -- the Committee would have issued a list of actions they have passed and the VA has still not acted on.  That's actually a rather long list.

Rachel wouldn't know about that or anything else that her staff didn't clip for her to read.

Richard Burr?

He can be a real ass.

That's why Kat loves him.  He doesn't float along with the crap the way so many do.  He is loud, he is critical.  He uses those attributes to try to help veterans and their families.

The statement he released was perfectly in keeping with Burr.

I have heard no outcry over the statement from veterans.  Yes, VSO leadership is offended.  Oh well.

They issued statements denying Burr's assertion.  They would have served the membership better by issuing statements which read, "While we strongly disagree with Burr's conclusions we will consider them."

Instead, what you saw was tantrums by VSO leadership at various organizations.  And maybe that's a good thing as they threaten they will stop being so nice?

Burr congratulates The American Legion.  Let's use them as an example then.  When they gave their annual presentation to both veterans committees, I called them and their new leader out.  And I have done so with others and will always do so.  And, no, my pointing out that issues related to women veterans are being ignored in presentations by VSOs  is not me attacking veterans.


Burr offered a critique.  He takes the issue very seriously.

If you're bothered by it, you should call him out.  You should mock him, ridicule him, do whatever.  But why do you have to lie?

Are your reasoning skills so insufficient that you can't make a case without lying?  Or is lying just second nature for you at this point?

Do you think the VSOs did a great job in the May 15th hearing?  Since none of the yackers attended it, they can't say for sure unless they want to find it online and stream it.  But I guess, like attending the actual hearing, streaming it would be too much work for the Rachel Maddows of this country.  [We covered the hearing in the Thursday, May 15th snapshot and Friday, May 16th snapshot, Ruth covered it in "Senator Richard Blumenthal says call in the F.B.I.," Kat covered it in "Shinseki needs to be fired," Ava covered it in "Shineski (Ava)" and Wally covered it in "More talk, no action (Wally)."]

If you think that they did, then that's your argument and you should make it.  But you're lying when you say that Burr attacked veterans.  He did no such thing.  He spoke out because he believed the veterans were not being served properly or well by VSO leaders before Congress on May 15th (with the exception of the American Legion).

You could even go to the media critique he offered.  But then you'd have to acknowledge whether or not you actually covered that hearing and Rachel Maddow and her ilk did not cover it.  We covered it here.  Speaking for me, again, Burr's correct.  I did not cover the VSOs.  I didn't find them to be important in that hearing or worth covering.  My first day of coverage was of the first panel (Shinseki) and my second day was acknowledging my judgment call on the Committee itself had been wrong.  That resulted from lengthy conversations with five veterans who were at the hearing.  And not one of those veterans said to me, "You know there's a point from the second panel that you should note."  (The second panel was the VSOs.)

Why lie about Burr?

They're attacking Burr -- Rachel and her pack of liars -- because they want to make it about Burr and not about Eric Shinseki.  Eric's the Secretary of the VA.  They've done a lot of rescuing of him.  The playbook says don't call it a "scandal" and attack Bully Boy Bush.


 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Nechirvan Barzani talks oil and the budget"
"Why War Is Not Inevitable (World Beyond War)"
"X-Men: Days of Future Past just another racist fil..."
"X-Men: Days of Future Past (Betty)"
"ACLU Comment on Wood v. Moss Ruling"
"VA censors who appears before Congress"
"Where is the left? Or I should have just written about music."
"Further thoughts on X-Men Days of Future Past"
"John Kerry, the inside joke"
"bloom off the rose"
"Barack's Drone War"
"Why Ant-Man's film should be shelved"
"ObamaCare -- just more corporate welfare for Big Business"
"NPR's been deleting my comments"
"If Bernie Sanders can't lead, he doesn't need to be a Chair"
"More fakery from the boob"
"THIS JUST IN! NEW POLICY?"

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

THIS JUST IN! NEW POLICY?

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O DECLARED YESTERDAY IT WAS 'TIME TO TURN THE PAGE' ON THE AFGHANISTAN WAR.

THE WORLD RESPONDED, "NO, DUMMY! IT'S TIME TO CLOSE THE BOOK!"

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O RESPONDED, "DUMMY?  REALLY?  DUMMY?  IS THIS BECAUSE I NEED SO MUCH HELP JUST TURING A PAGE?  PAGES ARE HEAVY.  AND I ALWAYS GET A PAPER CUT.  TIKI, MY MANICURIST, SAYS I NEED TO TAKE BETTER CARE OF MY HANDS!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Starting with War Crimes.  They've been taking place non-stop in Iraq.  Ava and I noted Sunday:

Early last week, we were noting how the world press looks the other way as Iraq's chief thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki kills Iraqi civilians.  He's long labeled Falluja -- where he is deeply unpopular -- a city where 'terrorists' have a foothold.  At the end of December, he began assaulting Anbar Province (whose big cities include Falluja and Ramadi), a Sunni dominant province which fueled the long standing charges that Shi'ite Nouri targets the Sunni population.
Labeling Falluja a hot bed of terrorism, Nouri began bombing it.
Falluja is a major city.  It has a huge population.
Nouri began bombing residential neighborhoods in Falluja at the start of January.
This bombing continues all these months later.
Even if you believe there are 'terrorists' in Falluja, you are not allowed to kill civilians.
This is what is known as "collective punishment."  It is a legally defined War Crime and has been for decades.  The US government recognizes it as a War Crime in various laws and treaties.
Nouri is committing War Crimes.
Each day people are injured and/or killed.
Civilians.
And no one in the US government speaks out, the western press offers no fiery editorials.  At one or three dead a day, it doesn't apparently seem that much.  But as the days turn to weeks and as the weeks turn to months, the tolls of the dead and wounded add up.
Nouri's also bombed hospitals in Falluja repeatedly.  This too is a War Crime.
And yet, all we get is silence.



Saturday, National Iraqi News Agency reported 1 civilian was killed and six more injured when Nouri bombed their Falluja home and another round of bombings of residential neighborhoods left 4 civilians dead and sixteen more injured.  In addition, Al-Faouq Omar Mosque was bombed as was the Falluja Water Department.  Sunday, National Iraqi News Agency reported one bombing left 4 civilians dead and nine injured and another left 9 dead and sixteen injured.  Monday,  National Iraqi News Agency reported Falluja General Hospital received twenty-seven victims today -- 7 dead civilians and twenty injured.  Today?  Alsumaria reports the latest bombings of Falluja's residential neighborhoods resulted in the death of 1 child and 2 other civilians with three more injured. A second bombing, NINA reports, left 3 civilians dead and eighteen injured.

These are War Crimes and they are being ignored outside of Iraq.


Every day the death and wounded toll grows higher. NINA speaks with Falluja Teaching Hospital's Dr. Ahmed al-Shami who explains at least 461 civilians have been killed in the last five months and 1466 injured from these bombings:


Al-Shami told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that / 461 / civilians, 18% of them children, and 11 % women were killed, adding that the number of wounded reached / 1466 / people, 19% of them children, and 17 % of them women .


So nearly 100 children have been killed by Nouri and the world outside of Iraq has pretty much stayed silent.  Human Rights Watch issued "Iraq: Government Attacking Fallujah Hospital" today.  Excerpt:

Iraqi government forces battling armed groups in the western province of Anbar since January 2014 have repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital with mortar shells and other munitions, Human Rights Watch said today. The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.

Since early May, government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). These indiscriminate attacks have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to flee.

“The government has been firing wildly into Fallujah’s residential neighborhoods for more than four months, and ramped up its attacks in May,” said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This reckless disregard for civilians is deadly for people caught between government forces and opposition groups.”

The armed groups fighting against government forces in Anbar, including ISIS, say they have executed captured Iraqi soldiers. ISIS has also claimed responsibility for suicide and car bomb attacks against civilian targets in other parts of Iraq in response to the assault on Fallujah. Human Rights Watch has found that ISIS abuses probably amount to crimes against humanity.

In Fallujah, ISIS has planted improvised explosive devices along the main highway and other parts of city, and is operating prisons in Fallujah and elsewhere, Fallujah residents said.

Six witnesses Human Rights Watch interviewed, three of them hospital staff, gave credible accounts of repeated strikes by government forces on Fallujah’s main hospital since January that have severely damaged buildings and injured patients and medical staff. An Iraqi government security officer based in Anbar, who spoke to Human Rights Watch on condition of anonymity, said government forces have targeted the hospital with mortars and artillery on 16 separate occasions.

The three hospital employees said mortar shells and projectiles had at various times struck the emergency room, the intensive care unit, the central air conditioning unit, a trailer that housed Bangladeshi hospital staff, and other parts of the hospital. The attacks injured four Bangladeshi workers, three Iraqi doctors, and an unknown number of patients, they said.

Such accounts of repeated strikes over four months, corroborated by photographs of apparent damage to the hospital, strongly indicate the hospital has been targeted, Human Rights Watch said.

Two witnesses to the hospital attacks, one of them a hospital employee, said that non-ISIS anti-government fighters were guarding the hospital and that wounded fighters were receiving treatment there. The Anbar-based government security official said that, according to information he received through his work and from hospital staff, ISIS has partly taken over the hospital, using the second floor to treat wounded fighters and administrative offices to detain high-level local officials.

All hospitals, whether civilian or military, are specially protected under the laws of war. They may not be targeted, even if being used to treat enemy fighters. Under customary international law applicable to the fighting in Anbar, hospitals remain protected unless they are used to commit hostile acts that are outside their humanitarian function. Even then, they are only subject to attack after a warning has been given setting a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has gone unheeded. Armed groups should not occupy or use medical facilities.

Witnesses and residents of Fallujah also described indiscriminate mortar and rocket attacks that have killed civilians, and damaged or destroyed homes, at least two mosques, and one school that were not being used for military purposes.

Accounts from witnesses, residents and the government security official indicate that, since the beginning of May, these indiscriminate government attacks have included the use of barrel bombs, dropped from helicopters, on populated areas of Fallujah. The Anbar-based security official said the army has been using barrel bombs since about May 2 in Fallujah, as well as in the towns of Garma, Saqlawiyya, Ibrahim Ibn Ali, and surrounding areas. “They started using them [barrel bombs] because they want to cause as much destruction as possible,” he said. “My government … decided to destroy the city instead of trying to invade it.”



At today's State Dept press briefing, the cowardly press refused to ask about the HRW report.  The State Dept is over the US mission in Iraq.  But the cowardly reporters didn't think the above was anything to ask about.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: The government's killing of civilians gets ..."
"Blair comes to bury (not delay)"
"The Limits of MSNBC (David Swanson)"
"Ukraine's Elections Nothing but PR with Gloomy Out..."
"America after 9-11"
"Weak Ass Barbara Lee"
"Shirley MacLaine"
"Afghanistan -- the never-ending war"
"Jody Watley and other dancers"
"Save the net"
"another outed c.i.a.-er"
"Heck of a government, Barry"
"Retail sales plunge"
"Carly"
"Blair comes to bury, not to delay"
"THIS JUST IN! BURY, BURY, BURY!"


  • Tuesday, May 27, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! BURY, BURY, BURY!



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


    If It Stared In Her Face


    BLAIR (PICTURED ABOVE FOLLOWING HIS IRAQ INQUIRY TESTIMONY) TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I'M NOT TRYING TO DELAY IT, I'M TRYING TO BURY IT!"


    Iraq remains a story even if the world media lost interest.

    A service member who publicly refused to deploy to Iraq wrote an e-mail asking if he was manipulated?

    He took a stand that proved costly for him.  He lives with that stand and feels it was the right thing for him. But he wonders about all the 'support' he briefly had.  He notes how quickly it vanished and how the people he thought were outraged by the Iraq War no longer appear to care.

    We've gone from expressing outrage, he noted, over the conditions in Iraq to not even caring.

    And he's right.

    Nouri's killing civilians.  Not his usual round-up-Sunnis-disappear-them-into-torture-chambers type crimes.  He's bombing residential neighborhoods in Falluja and has been doing this for five months now.

    And where's the outrage that the US installed and kept puppet is killing Iraqi civilians?

    He may or may not get a third term as prime minister but it's amazing how the press could note that Sunnis felt marginalized or worse by Nouri but the same press (western press) couldn't note he was carrying out War Crimes.

    Collective punishment is a legally defined War Crime.  When you say a populated area has X (terrorists, insurgents, militants, rebels, etc) in it and you decide to bomb it, that's collective punishment.  You're punishing civilians for the 'crime' of where they live.

    As prime minister of Iraq, he is obligated to protect the citizens.  Instead, he's killing them.

    He's killing them and he's getting away with it.

    The White House begged the Congress to drop their objections to arming Nouri with new weapons at the end of last year.  Senator Robert Menedez became the last hold out.  But the White House assured that Nouri would not use the weapons on the Iraqi people.

    Well that's all Nouri's done.

    And not only is it a War Crime, the Leahy Amendment bars the White House from providing funds or arms to a government targeting its own civilian population.

    The rush to normalize Iraq is really something to see.

    As with most cover ups and lies, it says much more about society than telling the plain truth ever could.

    The world community has no ethical ground to stand on.  With the exception of the European Parliament, no ruling body has made a point to call out these killings.

    It's amazing to look at the current administration's various War Hawks and their various attempts since 2009 to justify war on this nation or that with claims of gassing civilians or whatever while at the same time they stay silent as Nouri is on month five of bombing Falluja's residential neighborhoods.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq"