BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
TIME MAGAZINE'S JAY NEWTON-SMALL JUST GOT A NEW VIBRATOR, A REALLY BIG ONE, AND HE'S DUBBED IT "EL TORO."
TAKING IT FOR A TEST RUN, HE CHURNED OUT SOME FAN FICTION ON HIS WET DREAM BARRY O.
"AFTER SIX YEARS," NEWTON-SMALL TYPED WITH ONE HAND WHILE HE WORKED "EL TORO" IN AND OUT WITH THE OTHER, "OBAMA DRAWS COMPARISONS LIKE NO OTHER PRESIDENT."
POSSIBLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE'S GOT NO REAL CORE AND NO SPINE, THAT HE IS TO POLITICS WHAT MADONNA IS TO MUSIC: POPULAR BUT NOTHING OF LASTING VALUE?
WHO KNOWS HOW JAY'S SLASH FICTION WILL END BUT A WORD OF CAUTION.
TYPING WITH JUST ONE HAND CAN LEAD TO TYPOS AND "OSAMA" AND "OBAMA" HAVE ONLY ONE LETTER DIFFERENCE SO BE CAREFUL -- ONE LETTER COULD SPELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAPPY ORGASM OR PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT.
AND CONGRATULATIONS, JAY, ON "EL TORO,' MAY YOUR RELATIONSHIP LAST AS LONG AS THE DURACELL BATTERIES REQUIRED BUT NOT INCLUDED.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Kenneth Pollack offered an idiotic analysis
last week. I'm used to whorish American 'analysts' who pin all the
blame on the government of Iran and ignore what the US government is
done so this wasn't all that surprising:
Iran wields considerable influence in Iraq, unquestionably more than any
other foreign country and far more than the United States. It was Iran
that ultimately engineered Nuri al-Maliki’s re-election as prime
minister in 2010 by strong-arming the Sadrists to back him. It was the
Iranians who preserved his rule in 2012 by convincing Jalal Talabani to
refuse demands to call for a vote of no-confidence—a vote that Maliki
seemed likely to lose.
Pollack is with Brookings and to their credit and his credit they at
least pay attention to Iraq but I'm just not able to stomach the
whoring.
Iran's government probably was involved in the decision and certainly
the First Lady of Iraq makes pilgrimages to Iran all the time. However,
as Americans, we should be holding our own government accountable.
And Pollack doesn't have any desire to do that. The US government was
all over Talabani to prevent the vote against Nouri from taking place.
They pressured him with face-to-face visits, they pressured with phone
pleas (including from Vice President Joe Biden). We covered all of this
in real time. It's nearly two years later and Pollack won't cover it
but will point out that Iran supposedly pressured Talabani (I don't
doubt that they did but I don't know that they did -- I do from State
Dept friends that the US government pressured Talabani -- the same way I
know that the State Dept asked for net censorship and got it and we'll
probably be writing about that here in a few days).
The no-confidence vote was an attempt to oust Nouri.
Why?
Because the US government demanded Nouri get a second term as prime
minister even those his State of Law lost the 2010 parliamentary
elections to Ayad Allawi. How did they do that?
They brokered an extra-constitutional contract (The Erbil Agreement).
The US told the leaders of the political blocs that Nouri had refused
to step down for 8 months following the 2010 election and he could go
for 8 months more. As Nouri refused to step down, the government was at
a standstill (this is the political stalemate) and the US flattered the
egos of the leaders telling them they were the bigger persons and that
they could do what was right for Iraq and sign this legally binding
contract and let the country move forward.
Now that was playing to their egos and flattering them. That didn't get
to sign over a second term to Nouri. To get that, their had to be quid
pro quo. So, for example, to get the Kurds on board, it was written
into the contract that Article 140 of the Constitution (which would
resolve who gets Kirkuk -- the KRG or the central government out of
Baghdad).
All of these various promises were written into The Erbil Agreement and
Nouri put his binding signature to it like every political bloc leader.
Nouri used the contract to get his second term. He immediately then
said it couldn't be implemented immediately.
He stalled on delivering his end of the promises. That was November
2010. By the summer of 2011, cleric and movement leader Moqtada
al-Sadr, the Kurds and Iraqiya were publicly calling for Nouri to
implement the rest of the contact -- the part of it where he kept his
promises to them.
At this point, Nouri's spokesperson starts the contract wasn't legal.
As Nouri continued to refuse to implement his end of the contract, pleas
were made for the US government to help -- this contract was sold with
the backing of the White House ("the full backing," Talabani was told).
The pleas fell on deaf ears. As the contract was still not implemented
at the start of 2012, the Constitutional measure of a no-confidence vote
was raised. By April, Moqtada had signed onto the notion. He
repeatedly stated in public that Nouri could end the move towards a vote
at any point by implementing The Erbil Agreement.
They began gathering signatures and got enough. The signatures then go
to the President (Jalal) who forwards them onto the Parliament.
Under intense pressure from the US government -- and, Pollack says, from
the Iranian government -- Jalal invented these 'powers' where he was
supposed to vet signatures. He wasn't. Nor was he supposed to say,
"You did sign it? Okay, would you sign it now? Are you really, really
sure?" He trashed the signatures.
Then he ran to Germany, pretending he had a serious medical problem.
As we were noting last week, call it karma, call it the universe, whatever, it has a way of slapping back.
Jalal had elective knee surgery. But he lied that he had a life
threatening medical problem and had to leave for Germany to be treated.
He lied because the fallout from his unconstitutional actions was huge.
But Jalal's in Germany now, has been for about 16 months now. And he
really has had a life threatening problem. So maybe he shouldn't have
lied in May of 2012 because the universe made his lying true.
Pollack, if he got honest, probably could do a good analysis. The crap
he offered last week wasn't a good analysis. It included this garbage:
In addition, Muqtada al-Sadr’s bizarre and unexpected decision to disband his political party and withdraw from politics has further benefitted Maliki. Many former Sadrists are expected to sign on to Maliki’s SoL coalition.
Is Pollack that stupid or he is that much of a whore?
I have no idea but I read those lies and just want to scream. We
already covered this b.s. spin that Moqtada's followers were going to
flock to Nouri. It's xenophobic and pretends that Shi'ites will support
any Shi'ite. From the February 18th snapshot and we're using "--------" to note the beginning and the ending of the excerpt:
----------------------------------------------------
Moqtada al-Sadr was strong armed into supporting Nouri -- strong armed
by the Iranian government. His followers never supported Nouri.
More than that, they clearly rejected him.
Does no one remember what happened in 2010?
For one thing, immediately after the elections Moqtada threw it to his supporters 'who he should back?'
Have we all forgotten that?
From the April 7, 2010 snapshot:
That interview took place Monday and while there is no coalition-sharing
government/arrangement as yet from the March 7th elections, Friday and
Saturday, another round of elections were held -- this to determine whom
the Sadr bloc should back. Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc won 40 seats in the
Parliament. Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) report
that Ibrahim al-Jaafari "won 24 percent of the 428,000 ballots cast in
the internal referendum, ahead of al-Sadr's second cousin, Jafar
Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, who obtained 23 percent, Sadrist spokesman Salah
al-Ubaidi said today in the southern city of Najaf." Al Jazeera notes
that Nouri al-Maliki received 10% of the vote and Ayad Allawi 9%. The
US military invaded Iraq in March 2003 (and still hasn't left).
Following the invasion, Ayad Allawi became Iraq's first prime minister,
Ibrahim al-Jaafari became the second and Nouri al-Maliki became the
third. It's a little more complicated.
Nouri wasn't wanted,
Nouri wasn't chosen. Following the December 2005 elections, coalition
building took place and the choice for prime minister was al-Jaafari.
But the US government refused to allow him to continue as prime
minister. The Bush administration was adamant that he would not continue
and faulted him for, among other things, delays in the privatization of
Iraq's oil. Though the US had no Parliamentary vote, they got their way
and Nouri became the prime minister. al-Jaafari had won the vote with
the backing of al-Sadr's bloc, just as he won the vote that took place
this weekend. The vote can be seen as (a) a show of support for
al-Jaafari whom Sadarists have long supported and (b) a message to the
US government.
Stop lying that Nouri benefits from Moqtada dropping out. He doesn't.
The Sadr bloc can't stand Nouri -- that's been obvious in Parliament for the last four years.
Moqtada's supporters can't stand Nouri either. They remember his
attacks on them in 2008 in Basra and Sadr City. Moqtada is seen as
supporting the poor, Nouri's done nothing for the poor. BRussells Tribune carries an Al-Monitor article from last week by Amal Sakr which opens:
The head of the Model Iraqi Women Organization, Athraa Hassani, provided Al-Monitor with
this information, quoting World Bank officials who discussed these
statistics during a meeting in Turkey with a number of members of civil
society organizations seeking to find a solution to the poverty crisis
in Iraq.
Hassani questions the accuracy of the poverty rates announced by the
Iraqi government, affirming that these rates are continuously increasing
because of a rise in daily violence and spike in unemployment rates in
addition to a weakening of the Iraqi economy.
Based on the World Bank’s figures, this would mean that out of Iraq’s
34.7 million citizens, more than 9.5 million individuals are living below the poverty line.
Nothing has happened since 2010 to increase Nouri's standing among Sadr
supporters. In fact, since 2010, the efforts Moqtada and Ayad Allawi
have worked on have probably resulted in greater support for Allawi
which has let Nouri fall even lower. Probably.
But what is known is that Sadr supporters did not support Nouri in 2010.
They didn't support when the March 2010 voting took place and they did
not support a month later in the poll Moqtada carried out.
------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing to indicate that Moqtada's followers would support
Nouri -- there is ample evidence to demonstrate that they won't.
Equally true, Moqtada's not retired. We pointed that out weeks ago when
he returned to Iraq. Prior to his return, we pointed out that his
'retirement' didn't really mean anything. It didn't mean he couldn't be
prime minister, it didn't mean anything. And that was before he came
back to Iraq. And repeatedly denounced Nouri (which, again, means his
followers will not be supporting Nouri).
Joel Wing (Musings On Iraq) offers an analysis which includes:
In March and April the Sadr movement continued to criticize
Prime Minister Maliki. From March 10 to 12 Sadrists held
rallies in Baghdad, Najaf, Karbala, Basra, Kirkuk, Maysan, Dhi Qar, Babil,
Wasit, and Diyala against the premier for his remarks belittling Moqtada
al-Sadr. There were also reports of attacks upon Dawa offices, which were
played down by both parties so that the election didn’t get sidetracked by violence.
March 23, Sadr’s Ahrar List said it opposed
Maliki serving a third term, stating that other parties and the Iraqi
people wanted change. It went on to say that Maliki had failed to secure the
country or to provide political stability. Continuing with that line on April 3
Sadr gave a speech
calling Maliki a dictator who was leading the country towards one party rule by
banning his opponents. Sadr was joined by parliamentarian Jawad Shahlya from
Ahrar and independent lawmaker Saban al-Saadi, both of which had been barred
from running in this year’s vote. Sadr went on to accuse the prime minister of
attempting to marginalize Sunnis by launching military operations in Anbar.
Sadr finished by calling on Maliki to
step aside so someone else could try running the country. Finally, on April
5 Shahlya claimed Maliki was attempting to pass a law that would give him
broad powers that would lead to the declaration of a state of emergency and the
dissolution of the parliament.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's 'success': at least 76 dead, 34 injured"
"Murray to Introduce Major Military and Veteran Car..."
"War For Dummies (David Swanson)"
"Federal Court Asked to Take Action On Behalf of Co..."
"Elementary"
"community is in a race to air its worst episode ever"
"Not Quite There"
"The CW and cancellations"
"Mickey Rooney and some surviving film stars"
"CBS makes another 'brave' decision"
"Glen Ford calls out Al Sharpton"
"ObamaCare is still unpopular"
"Guns and Butter"
"Talking post"
"Corruption You Knew Was Coming"
"THIS JUST IN! PICK UP YOUR CAMPAIGN STICKERS AT THE I.R.S.!"
Friday, April 11, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
THIS JUST IN! PICK UP YOUR CAMPAIGN STICKERS AT THE I.R.S.!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
THE 2012 SQUEAKER THAT WAS THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (51.1% FOR THE DAHLI BAMA, 47.2% FOR MITT ROMNEY) TOOK PLACE WITH LOTS OF PATS TO BARRY O'S TUSHIE FROM THE MEDIA.
NOW IT TURNS OUT "CORRUPTION YOU KNEW WAS COMING" HAD HELP FROM THE I.R.S. THE INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ANNOUNCED TWO EMPLOYEES HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW -- THE HATCH ACT -- AND AN I.R.S. CENTER IN DALLAS, TEXAS APPEARS TO HAVE.
THE HATCH ACT BASICALLY PREVENTS ELECTIONEERING ON THE PART OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. YET THE I.R.S. IN DALLAS APPEARS TO HAVE FEATURED EMPLOYEES AND EQUIPMENT PLASTERED WITH BARRY O. BUMPER STICKERS, T-SHIRTS, WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE TWO EMPLOYEES?
ONE WORKED A CALL CENTER AND CHANTED A RE-ELECTION CHANT FOR BARRY O TO ALL INCOMING CALLS. NO PUNISHMENT HAS YET BEEN HANDED DOWN FOR THIS.
THE OTHER EMPLOYEE? SHE HAD BEEN WARNED ABOUT HATCH ACT VIOLATIONS AND THEN WAS CAUGHT IN A RECORDING WITH A CUSTOMER TRASHING REPUBLICANS AND PRAISING DEMOCRATS.
SHE GOT A 14 DAY SUSPENSION.
LIKE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT.
WHY WASN'T SHE FIRED?
SHE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW?
WHY WASN'T SHE FIRED?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT, THE CORRUPT WHITE HOUSE PREFERS FOR EVERYTHING:
S. 2170, the "Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012," which modifies penalties under the Hatch Act to provide for a range of possible disciplinary actions in addition to removal for Federal employees; provides explicitly that various provisions of the Hatch Act that are applicable to State and local governments are in the same way applicable to the District of Columbia; and applies the prohibition against State and local employees being candidates for elective office only to employees whose salary is paid completely by Federal loans or grants;
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
US House Rep Jeff Miller: I had hoped that during this hearing, we would be discussing the concrete changes VA had made -- changes that would show beyond a doubt that VA had placed the care our veterans receive first and that VA's commitment to holding any employee who did not completely embody a commitment to excellence through actions appropriate to the employee's failure accountable. Instead, today we are faced with even with more questions and ever mounting evidence that despite the myriad of patient safety incidents that have occurred at VA medical facilities in recent memory, the status quo is still firmly entrenched at VA. On Monday -- shortly before this public hearing -- VA provided evidence that a total of twenty-three veterans have died due to delays in care at VA medical facilities. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our Committee still don't know when they may have happened beyond VA's stated "most likely between 2010 and 2012." These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the VA's consult review, this committee has reviewed at least eighteen preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection control practices and a whole host -- a whole host -- of other maladies plaguing the VA health care system nationwide. Yet, the department's stonewall has only grown higher and non-responsive. There is no excuse for these incidents to have ever occurred. Congress has met every resource request that VA has made and I guarantee that if the department would have approached this committee at any time to tell us that help was needed to ensure that veterans received the care they required, every possible action would have been taken to ensure that VA could adequately care for our veterans. This is the third full committee hearing that I have held on patient safety and I am going to save our VA witnesses a little bit of time this morning by telling them what I don't want to hear. I don't want to hear the rote repetition of -- and I quote -- "the department is committed to providing the highest quality care, which our veterans have earned and that they deserve. When incidents occur, we identify, mitigate, and prevent additional risks. Prompt reviews prevent similar events in the future and hold those persons accountable." Another thing I don’t want to hear is -- and, again, I quote from numerous VA statements, including a recent press statement -- "while any adverse incident for a veteran within our care is one too many," preventable deaths represent a small fraction of the veterans who seek care from VA every year. What our veterans have truly "earned and deserve" is not more platitudes and, yes, one adverse incident is indeed one too many. Look, we all recognize that no medical system is infallible no matter how high the quality standards might be. But I think we all also recognize that the VA health care system is unique because it has a unique, special obligation not only to its patients -- the men and women who honorably serve our nation in uniform -- but also to the hard-working taxpayers of the United States of America.
Miller is the Committee Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. He was speaking at today's hearing on VA accountability. And about mid-way into the hearing, it got very personal for one member of Congress who teared up during her round of questioning.
US House Rep Jackie Walorski: I sit here as a freshman lawmaker, so frustrated that there's a bureaucracy that's out of control and if this happened in the civilian world, where negligence was proven time and time again, we would be in the street with signs saying 'shut them down.' It's an outrage, is what it is. This is an outrage. And so, I just join the rest of my colleagues here. This isn't a partisan issue. This is an American disaster that we have sat here and witnessed -- for me, probably 16 months. And if I could change your circumstance, I would. I would do it in a heartbeat. [Sharp intake of breath.]
Barry Coates: Thank you.
US House Rep Jackie Walorski: My dad -- [Voice breaking] My dad . . . was a veteran . . . that died of colon cancer. [Sniffling] This is so personal to me. And as a Committee, I can tell you right now what the VA's going to say when they sit here. They're going to say what the Chairman read in his opening remarks. They're going to give us long dramatic answers and nothing is going to change unless we in this Congress -- on the House and the Senate side -- decide to stand up and take on one of the biggest issues in this nation -- which is this negligence toward taking care of the people who fight for freedom, fought for liberty and allow us to sit and serve in a place called the US Congress.
"Teared up" is not mocking Walorski. And the ". . ." indicates lengthy pauses where she attempted to fight back tears. I've cried at many of the VA hearings myself, I would not mock anyone for sincerely caring. I also agree with her remarks about the frustration issue. I've written of that myself, of how we've been going to these VA hearings since 2006 and nothing gets done. The VA always has an excuse and the problems today are the same problems the Committees were exploring in 2006.
I was glad for her honest reaction during her time -- it was good to hear a member of the Committee express their frustration. US House Rep Michael Michaud is the Ranking Member of the Committee. He wasn't at the hearing but this is from Michaud's prepared written remarks, "All too often, members of this Committee hear the same issues raised again and again in reports by agencies such as the Government Accountability Office and the VA’s Office of Inspector General. Findings such as inadequate training, improper oversight, lack of guidance, no accountability, and failing to follow proper procedures already in place, are too common." Michaud was not present so US House Rep Corrine Brown was acting Ranking Member.
Ranking Member Corrine Brown: [I]t is unfortunate that we must continually call these hearings to make sure that our nation’s veterans are receiving the care for which they have already paid dearly for on the battlefields and in service to protect the freedoms we all hold most dear. I find it disturbing that just 2 days before this hearing, the VA has releases findings that its healthcare personnel are not fully trained in the importance of timely consults when treating a veteran. The dictionary defines a consult as the act of seeking information or advice from someone with expertise in a particular area. The system the VA set up to make these consults easier obviously broke down and it is possible that at least 5 veterans died in Florida because the right information was not shared with the right health professionals. I am concerned that in the 5 years after the colonoscopy debacle at the Miami VA, nothing has changed. To refresh your memory, in 2009, staff members at a number of VA facilities noticed improper reprocessing of endoscopes contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions. The VA properly ordered all facilities to Step-Up and get retrained on the procedures. We want employees to feel free to report questionable issue and procedures without fear of retribution for trying to save lives.
It was a rare moment of coherence for Brown. And she actually stood with veterans . . . while reading from her prepared remarks.
Then she wanted to insist, at the end of the first panel, that the VA is not broken: "I don't feel like it's broken, I feel like we need to do what we need to do to fix it." Which would imply a break.
Hey lady, you lady. Corrine Brown quickly got lost in her Charlene impression as she declared she'd been to "those areas in Florida or Tampa" -- yes, Florida is in Tampa, don't expect logic from Corrine Brown -- "I've been too, or Jacksonville or Gainseville or Lake City. I mean, I've been to California . . ."
and anywhere I could run
I took the hand of a preacher man
and we made love in the sun
Poor, Corrine Brown, she's "been to paradise but I've never been to me."
Well, for a few moments she wasn't the biggest joke on the Committee. We're being real kind and not quoting Loony Corrine Brown telling a man with stage-four cancer that she's got a friend that the hospital released and told him he was as good as dead but, somehow, maybe one of her magic wigs, he's still alive today. If the story's true, Brown really needs to learn to edit herself and grasp that cancer patients don't need lectures or your hopium. Loony Corrine Brown. We're going to need two straight jackets -- one for her wig.
The first panel appearing before the Committee was veteran Barry Coates, The American Legion's Daniel Dellinger (with Edward Lilly). The second panel was the VA's Dr. Thomas Lynch and Dr. Carolyn Clancy. The third panel was the Government Accountability Office's Debra Draper, the VA's Assistant Inspector General Dr. John Daigh.
Chair Miller explained, "Mr. Coates waited for almost a year and would have waited even longer had he not actively, persistently insisted on receiving the colonoscopy that he and his doctors knew he needed. That same colonoscopy revealed that Mr. Coates had stage four colon cancer that had metastasized to his lungs and his liver. Maybe that is why VA does not want to define accountability in terms of employees who have been fired." Coates wondered what service members must be thinking as they hear of the VA's 'treatment' of veterans. He suspected that they wondered if they and their families would suffer similarly when they went from service member to veteran?
Barry Coates: So something needs to be done and someone needs to be held accountable for it and I understand from other sources that no one's been held accountable for it. And I think someone should be held accountable for it whether it be a director of the [William Jennings Bryan] Dorn VA hospital, whether it be the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs or even the President of the United States.
Coates would declare that the VA "handed me a death sentence and ruined my quality of life."
Chair Jeff Miller: Mr. Coates, in the more or less year that it took for you to receive a colonoscopy through the Department of Veterans Affairs, did anybody at any time ever tell you that you could be authorized to receive the procedure that you needed done through a private provider in the community enabling you to get a diagnosis sooner
Barry Coates: No, sir. I never was advised during that time period. During that time period, I seen, from January of 2011, when I first complained about it, till the day of my colonoscopy which was December the 9th of 2011, I've seen four different doctors that was in the VA system. One was Rock Hill Clinic Outpatient Dr. Verma -- she was my outpatient clinic doctor I had in Rock Hill, South Carolina. I moved to the location I live now. I transferred. It takes roughly anywhere from four to six months to get transferred to a different location for outpatient care which would have been the Florence clinic. Upon that, I'd seen Dr. Verma on January, March and I think in May of that same year. Each time, my problem got worse and she made notes in her comments because I got -- retrieved -- copies of those from the VA and she made note of those "may need colonoscopy" -- never set a consult up for it. Upon getting transferred to the Florence Clinic in June of 2011, if I remember correctly, Dr. Neumann was my doctor there. And being a new patient, he did a full exam, looked over my information from Dr. Verma prior to treating me and he kind of got upset because she didn't have me on certain prescriptions because of taking pills for pain will cause certain problems and that I should have been on something already from that, from being on those for quite a few years. But he immediately set me up on a consult with a GI surgeon which I didn't never get to an appointment with her until probably either around the eighth month or maybe the ninth month if I remember correctly, Dr. Kim. And upon seeing her, I seen her twice. She delayed it another two or three months. And I went back to her again, around the tenth month. We didn't have a good communication ability between each other because she kind of made me mad from my first appointment because of things that she could have done then that would have resulted earlier and set a consult up for a colonoscopy if she would have done a couple of other procedures other than a physical exam. I learned that she could have done a CT exam or a CT scan [. . .] exam which would have found the tumor which was only 5 inches in the area -- in the lower rectum area. After that appointment with her on the 10th, she set me up for a consult for a colonoscopy to be done -- which I received the appointment in the mail two weeks later and it was actually scheduled for April of the following year -- we're talking six more months out -- and I'd already been in pain for eight months already and suffering because of this. But I didn't let that stand in front of me, so I called the department that scheduled that appointment and they told me that that's the normal time -- usually around six months -- before you could get a colonoscopy. There was nothing that she could have done to get it earlier, that only way you could get it done earlier was to request your physician to write the chief GI surgeon or either the gastrologist to get it done sooner. Or you could call each day to see if anyone dropped off from the appointment schedule. And I asked her could she write my name down and call me if someone dropped off? She said she couldn't do that. She called me the next morning at 9:30 and asked me if I could come to an appointment around 2:30 that day which I did. And that's when I was set up for the colonoscopy to be done at the Fort Jackson military hospital on December the 9th. So from January to December the 9th was a whole year.
We're going to stop here a second. 'She' can't do that and she did. She really can't -- we'll go into that in a second. But she said she couldn't and most likely said that because she didn't want to make a promise she couldn't keep. She probably receives several calls a week (if not a day) like Coates' call.
It's not possible.
At the time Coates spoke to the woman, he was one person needing a procedure for which there was scheduling required.
Along with Barry Coates, 'she' was facing others wanting to get in sooner. Let's pretend for just one minute that this was just five people. 'She' doesn't have time to call them and let them know.
I'm not being sarcastic. 'She' has other duties.
But this can be set up automatically and should be. The VA, for any scheduled procedure, should have an automated system where people waiting for a procedure and willing to take a spot that opens before their own are automatically called and hear, "Hello, veteran. Tomorrow at 2:00 pm [or whatever time] we now have a cancellation for [whatever procedure]. We will be filling it on a first call first serve basis. If you are interested in that time slot, please contact us."
Now that alone's going to add a lot of work to 'she' (because it's going to be more than five people calling and she'll have to explain over and over to all but one that the slot is now filled) but it can be done and it can be automated. Can be and should be. (And if you automated the outgoing call and also automated the first-come-first serve aspect, 'she' wouldn't have to do any additional calls on this.)
Automation also means 'she' doesn't have 140 post-its on her desk that she has to keep track of regarding 'call me if there's a last minute opening.'
The VA needs to automate the system immediately. These are things that can and should be done and that the VA Secretary should have already started implementing.
US House Rep Julia Brownley: [. . .] Have you had any formal apology from the VA?
Barry Coates: None.
"Before I walked up here, I apologized to Mr. Coates," the VA's Lynch wanted to insist. Yes, yes, you did. At a Congressional hearing, after Barry Coates had testified -- and testified that no one in the VA had apologized to him, after Coates was done testifying and right before Lynch was about to, he rushed to get in a quick and perfunctory -- we all saw it -- 'apology.' And to make clear just how insincere it was, Lynch wanted to make his first statement to the Committee, before he started reading from his prepared remarks, "Before I walked up here, I apologized to Mr. Coates." Give him a gold star -- for insincerity. Coates had stated he did not receive an institutional disclosure (Chair Miller had specifically asked) and to make the 'apology' even more insincere, Lynch wanted to immediately rush into "if he did not receive an institutional disclosure" -- it's not if. It's testimony to the Committee.
Chair Jeff Miller: Your recent national consulate delayed review revealed two deaths in Arizona but Committee investigation shows that it appears that it could be much worse than you know. Or, if you do know that it's worse than what the Committee was told? So I want to tell you about some information that we have received here in the Committee as it relates to Phoenix. I've been made aware of internal e-mails from within the VA that suggest that Phoenix VA may have been using an unofficial electronic waiting list where veterans were placed on that unofficial list until an appointment became available. These lists were supposedly designed to give the appearance that veterans were only waiting for appointments for 24, 25 days or less and they potentially contained thousands of names. In cross-referencing the two lists, it appears there could be as many as 40 veterans whose deaths could be related to delays in care. Were you made aware of any of these unofficial lists in any part of your lookback?
Dr. Thomas Lynch: Mr. Chairman, I was not. And Mr. Chairman, I would say that I have tried to work with your Committee, I have visited with your staff. I was in Atlanta. I was in Columbia. I was in Augusta when you made those visits. I have tried to share the information that we have gained as we are obtaining it. I know it's not perfect information, sir, but I know that there's a desire on your part to know that information as we obtain it. I am more than willing to meet with your staffers and take their information so that I can use it, sir. If I don't have that information, I can't act on it.
Chair Jeff Miller: So your people had two lists and they even kept it from your knowledge so my question is: Does that make you even internally question the validity of the information being utilized in your lookback or review?
Dr. Thomas Lynch: At the moment, sir, it does not. But I am open. I am happy to meet with your staffers. I'm happy to look at the data so that we can understand it and see what the issues and the problems are.
Chair Jeff Miller: I want to provide you with a request for a preservation order for all potential evidence at Phoenix. And I would also ask the Inspector General for health care, Mr. Day, to look into this issue as soon as possible. I will be putting a letter to you as quickly -- but I want to make this as an official request, on the record, and we are ready to assist by providing our input and any assistance that Dr. Day may need as he goes through. It's been mentioned a couple of times in here about Dorn being awarded a little over a million dollars -- one-million-point-two or some number like that -- to help in the backlog of fee base colonoscopy. The money was provided in September of 2011. I have still not been able to get a solid answer where that money went. So I hope you'll be able to provide some insight this afternoon.
Dr. Thomas Lynch: Mr. Chairman, I know that that information has passed through VHA. I took the opportunity to listen to the Deputy Secretary's hearing the other day. I know he has committed to increasing the communication with Congress and with this Committee and I support his efforts and will do what I can to get you the information that you need, sir.
Chair Jeff Miller: So, again, another piece of information the Committee awaits. I specifically asked for a complete accounting of those dollars when I was at Dorn earlier this year. On the 22nd of February, in a Health Committee hearing, Dr. [US House Rep Dan] Benishek asked Dr. [Robert] Petzel to provide a list of circumstances surrounding the removal of six SES employees over the last two years. Dr. Petzel promised at that hearing that he would provide that information at the end of that week -- this is February 26th. It's been six weeks since the Committee asked for the information. We have not received it. This information was referenced in a Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity that was chaired by Mr. Florez. And, by the way, Mr. Florez is absent today because he is at the memorial for Fort Hood in Texas. And the Committee staff has made numerous requests I would also note that in your -- this statistic was also noted in your written statement for this hearing. So why is VA keeping this information from the Committee when it was an entirely reasonable request?
Dr. Thomas Lynch: Sir, I wish I had an answer for you that you would find acceptable. I can only repeat that I support the Deputy Secretary's efforts to get you the information in a timely fashion.
Chair Jeff Miller: You know, I have a bill right now, Dr. Lynch, that gives the Secretary additional flexibility to fire SES employees out of the 320,000 employees at the Dept of Veterans Affairs we're only talking about 450 individuals. The Secretary is pushing back, saying that he has the tools and that he has, in fact, taken the necessary steps. And we're talking about six people. And we've been waiting months now to get that information. And I just -- as the Chairman and the Subcommittee Chairmen and the Ranking Members just sit here wondering why in the world it takes so long?
We could continue but we don't have the space. Visit the House Veterans Affairs Committee's VA Accountability Watch for more examples. On veterans issues, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Nick McCormick has a column at Defense One where he advocates for the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans:
The same day we placed American flags on the Mall, we welcomed the introduction of the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act. The bill was introduced by the first Iraq war veteran to serve in the Senate, John Walsh of Montana. In announcing the legislation and the need for new action, Sen. Walsh shared how this issue has personally affected him, including how one of the soldiers he commanded in the Montana National Guard died by suicide when the unit returned home from Iraq.
Sen. Walsh’s bill would extend VA health care for some veterans from 5 to 15 years, review wrongful discharges, and ensure greater collaboration between VA and DoD to ensure a seamless transition of care for our men and women in uniform.
Now, the House needs to introduce a similar bill and more senators from both parties need to support this bill. The biggest request veterans and the American public need to demand from Congress is this: for once, please do not let the stale election-year politics of old stand in the way of enacting necessary reforms that will save lives.
Yesterday's snapshot covered Secretary of State John Kerry's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Wally reported on it in "Learn the Constitution, John Kerry," Ruth in "Rand Paul's security concerns re: Benghazi," Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!" and Cedric's "John Kerry knows nothing about money" joint-post noted one aspect and Ava covered the hearing in "John Kerry gets prissy and rude before the Senate (Ava)." (Ava will be back at Trina's site tonight to report on today's House Veterans Affair Committee and tonight Ruth will continue to cover Senator Rand Paul's exchange with Kerry.)
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's War Crimes continue, oil battles continue ..."
"Talk Nation Radio: Betsy Leondar-Wright on Cross-C..."
"Is the Obama Administration telling the American p..."
"US illegal spying included spying on human rights ..."
"One Nation the U.S. Actually Should Liberate (Davi..."
"Repeats"
"revenge - the good"
"What they tell us, what they don't"
"The wrong focus"
"Ed Snowden"
"Iraq and polio"
"No accountability at the VA (Ava)"
"Laughable John Kerry says retirement is the same as death"
"Child marriage"
"Ass Backwards"
"John Kerry knows nothing about money"
"THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!"
THE 2012 SQUEAKER THAT WAS THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (51.1% FOR THE DAHLI BAMA, 47.2% FOR MITT ROMNEY) TOOK PLACE WITH LOTS OF PATS TO BARRY O'S TUSHIE FROM THE MEDIA.
NOW IT TURNS OUT "CORRUPTION YOU KNEW WAS COMING" HAD HELP FROM THE I.R.S. THE INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ANNOUNCED TWO EMPLOYEES HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW -- THE HATCH ACT -- AND AN I.R.S. CENTER IN DALLAS, TEXAS APPEARS TO HAVE.
THE HATCH ACT BASICALLY PREVENTS ELECTIONEERING ON THE PART OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. YET THE I.R.S. IN DALLAS APPEARS TO HAVE FEATURED EMPLOYEES AND EQUIPMENT PLASTERED WITH BARRY O. BUMPER STICKERS, T-SHIRTS, WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE TWO EMPLOYEES?
ONE WORKED A CALL CENTER AND CHANTED A RE-ELECTION CHANT FOR BARRY O TO ALL INCOMING CALLS. NO PUNISHMENT HAS YET BEEN HANDED DOWN FOR THIS.
THE OTHER EMPLOYEE? SHE HAD BEEN WARNED ABOUT HATCH ACT VIOLATIONS AND THEN WAS CAUGHT IN A RECORDING WITH A CUSTOMER TRASHING REPUBLICANS AND PRAISING DEMOCRATS.
SHE GOT A 14 DAY SUSPENSION.
LIKE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT.
WHY WASN'T SHE FIRED?
SHE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW?
WHY WASN'T SHE FIRED?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT, THE CORRUPT WHITE HOUSE PREFERS FOR EVERYTHING:
S. 2170, the "Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012," which modifies penalties under the Hatch Act to provide for a range of possible disciplinary actions in addition to removal for Federal employees; provides explicitly that various provisions of the Hatch Act that are applicable to State and local governments are in the same way applicable to the District of Columbia; and applies the prohibition against State and local employees being candidates for elective office only to employees whose salary is paid completely by Federal loans or grants;
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
US House Rep Jeff Miller: I had hoped that during this hearing, we would be discussing the concrete changes VA had made -- changes that would show beyond a doubt that VA had placed the care our veterans receive first and that VA's commitment to holding any employee who did not completely embody a commitment to excellence through actions appropriate to the employee's failure accountable. Instead, today we are faced with even with more questions and ever mounting evidence that despite the myriad of patient safety incidents that have occurred at VA medical facilities in recent memory, the status quo is still firmly entrenched at VA. On Monday -- shortly before this public hearing -- VA provided evidence that a total of twenty-three veterans have died due to delays in care at VA medical facilities. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our Committee still don't know when they may have happened beyond VA's stated "most likely between 2010 and 2012." These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the VA's consult review, this committee has reviewed at least eighteen preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection control practices and a whole host -- a whole host -- of other maladies plaguing the VA health care system nationwide. Yet, the department's stonewall has only grown higher and non-responsive. There is no excuse for these incidents to have ever occurred. Congress has met every resource request that VA has made and I guarantee that if the department would have approached this committee at any time to tell us that help was needed to ensure that veterans received the care they required, every possible action would have been taken to ensure that VA could adequately care for our veterans. This is the third full committee hearing that I have held on patient safety and I am going to save our VA witnesses a little bit of time this morning by telling them what I don't want to hear. I don't want to hear the rote repetition of -- and I quote -- "the department is committed to providing the highest quality care, which our veterans have earned and that they deserve. When incidents occur, we identify, mitigate, and prevent additional risks. Prompt reviews prevent similar events in the future and hold those persons accountable." Another thing I don’t want to hear is -- and, again, I quote from numerous VA statements, including a recent press statement -- "while any adverse incident for a veteran within our care is one too many," preventable deaths represent a small fraction of the veterans who seek care from VA every year. What our veterans have truly "earned and deserve" is not more platitudes and, yes, one adverse incident is indeed one too many. Look, we all recognize that no medical system is infallible no matter how high the quality standards might be. But I think we all also recognize that the VA health care system is unique because it has a unique, special obligation not only to its patients -- the men and women who honorably serve our nation in uniform -- but also to the hard-working taxpayers of the United States of America.
Miller is the Committee Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. He was speaking at today's hearing on VA accountability. And about mid-way into the hearing, it got very personal for one member of Congress who teared up during her round of questioning.
US House Rep Jackie Walorski: I sit here as a freshman lawmaker, so frustrated that there's a bureaucracy that's out of control and if this happened in the civilian world, where negligence was proven time and time again, we would be in the street with signs saying 'shut them down.' It's an outrage, is what it is. This is an outrage. And so, I just join the rest of my colleagues here. This isn't a partisan issue. This is an American disaster that we have sat here and witnessed -- for me, probably 16 months. And if I could change your circumstance, I would. I would do it in a heartbeat. [Sharp intake of breath.]
Barry Coates: Thank you.
US House Rep Jackie Walorski: My dad -- [Voice breaking] My dad . . . was a veteran . . . that died of colon cancer. [Sniffling] This is so personal to me. And as a Committee, I can tell you right now what the VA's going to say when they sit here. They're going to say what the Chairman read in his opening remarks. They're going to give us long dramatic answers and nothing is going to change unless we in this Congress -- on the House and the Senate side -- decide to stand up and take on one of the biggest issues in this nation -- which is this negligence toward taking care of the people who fight for freedom, fought for liberty and allow us to sit and serve in a place called the US Congress.
"Teared up" is not mocking Walorski. And the ". . ." indicates lengthy pauses where she attempted to fight back tears. I've cried at many of the VA hearings myself, I would not mock anyone for sincerely caring. I also agree with her remarks about the frustration issue. I've written of that myself, of how we've been going to these VA hearings since 2006 and nothing gets done. The VA always has an excuse and the problems today are the same problems the Committees were exploring in 2006.
I was glad for her honest reaction during her time -- it was good to hear a member of the Committee express their frustration. US House Rep Michael Michaud is the Ranking Member of the Committee. He wasn't at the hearing but this is from Michaud's prepared written remarks, "All too often, members of this Committee hear the same issues raised again and again in reports by agencies such as the Government Accountability Office and the VA’s Office of Inspector General. Findings such as inadequate training, improper oversight, lack of guidance, no accountability, and failing to follow proper procedures already in place, are too common." Michaud was not present so US House Rep Corrine Brown was acting Ranking Member.
Ranking Member Corrine Brown: [I]t is unfortunate that we must continually call these hearings to make sure that our nation’s veterans are receiving the care for which they have already paid dearly for on the battlefields and in service to protect the freedoms we all hold most dear. I find it disturbing that just 2 days before this hearing, the VA has releases findings that its healthcare personnel are not fully trained in the importance of timely consults when treating a veteran. The dictionary defines a consult as the act of seeking information or advice from someone with expertise in a particular area. The system the VA set up to make these consults easier obviously broke down and it is possible that at least 5 veterans died in Florida because the right information was not shared with the right health professionals. I am concerned that in the 5 years after the colonoscopy debacle at the Miami VA, nothing has changed. To refresh your memory, in 2009, staff members at a number of VA facilities noticed improper reprocessing of endoscopes contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions. The VA properly ordered all facilities to Step-Up and get retrained on the procedures. We want employees to feel free to report questionable issue and procedures without fear of retribution for trying to save lives.
It was a rare moment of coherence for Brown. And she actually stood with veterans . . . while reading from her prepared remarks.
Then she wanted to insist, at the end of the first panel, that the VA is not broken: "I don't feel like it's broken, I feel like we need to do what we need to do to fix it." Which would imply a break.
Hey lady, you lady. Corrine Brown quickly got lost in her Charlene impression as she declared she'd been to "those areas in Florida or Tampa" -- yes, Florida is in Tampa, don't expect logic from Corrine Brown -- "I've been too, or Jacksonville or Gainseville or Lake City. I mean, I've been to California . . ."
and anywhere I could run
I took the hand of a preacher man
and we made love in the sun
Poor, Corrine Brown, she's "been to paradise but I've never been to me."
Well, for a few moments she wasn't the biggest joke on the Committee. We're being real kind and not quoting Loony Corrine Brown telling a man with stage-four cancer that she's got a friend that the hospital released and told him he was as good as dead but, somehow, maybe one of her magic wigs, he's still alive today. If the story's true, Brown really needs to learn to edit herself and grasp that cancer patients don't need lectures or your hopium. Loony Corrine Brown. We're going to need two straight jackets -- one for her wig.
The first panel appearing before the Committee was veteran Barry Coates, The American Legion's Daniel Dellinger (with Edward Lilly). The second panel was the VA's Dr. Thomas Lynch and Dr. Carolyn Clancy. The third panel was the Government Accountability Office's Debra Draper, the VA's Assistant Inspector General Dr. John Daigh.
Chair Miller explained, "Mr. Coates waited for almost a year and would have waited even longer had he not actively, persistently insisted on receiving the colonoscopy that he and his doctors knew he needed. That same colonoscopy revealed that Mr. Coates had stage four colon cancer that had metastasized to his lungs and his liver. Maybe that is why VA does not want to define accountability in terms of employees who have been fired." Coates wondered what service members must be thinking as they hear of the VA's 'treatment' of veterans. He suspected that they wondered if they and their families would suffer similarly when they went from service member to veteran?
Barry Coates: So something needs to be done and someone needs to be held accountable for it and I understand from other sources that no one's been held accountable for it. And I think someone should be held accountable for it whether it be a director of the [William Jennings Bryan] Dorn VA hospital, whether it be the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs or even the President of the United States.
Coates would declare that the VA "handed me a death sentence and ruined my quality of life."
Chair Jeff Miller: Mr. Coates, in the more or less year that it took for you to receive a colonoscopy through the Department of Veterans Affairs, did anybody at any time ever tell you that you could be authorized to receive the procedure that you needed done through a private provider in the community enabling you to get a diagnosis sooner
Barry Coates: No, sir. I never was advised during that time period. During that time period, I seen, from January of 2011, when I first complained about it, till the day of my colonoscopy which was December the 9th of 2011, I've seen four different doctors that was in the VA system. One was Rock Hill Clinic Outpatient Dr. Verma -- she was my outpatient clinic doctor I had in Rock Hill, South Carolina. I moved to the location I live now. I transferred. It takes roughly anywhere from four to six months to get transferred to a different location for outpatient care which would have been the Florence clinic. Upon that, I'd seen Dr. Verma on January, March and I think in May of that same year. Each time, my problem got worse and she made notes in her comments because I got -- retrieved -- copies of those from the VA and she made note of those "may need colonoscopy" -- never set a consult up for it. Upon getting transferred to the Florence Clinic in June of 2011, if I remember correctly, Dr. Neumann was my doctor there. And being a new patient, he did a full exam, looked over my information from Dr. Verma prior to treating me and he kind of got upset because she didn't have me on certain prescriptions because of taking pills for pain will cause certain problems and that I should have been on something already from that, from being on those for quite a few years. But he immediately set me up on a consult with a GI surgeon which I didn't never get to an appointment with her until probably either around the eighth month or maybe the ninth month if I remember correctly, Dr. Kim. And upon seeing her, I seen her twice. She delayed it another two or three months. And I went back to her again, around the tenth month. We didn't have a good communication ability between each other because she kind of made me mad from my first appointment because of things that she could have done then that would have resulted earlier and set a consult up for a colonoscopy if she would have done a couple of other procedures other than a physical exam. I learned that she could have done a CT exam or a CT scan [. . .] exam which would have found the tumor which was only 5 inches in the area -- in the lower rectum area. After that appointment with her on the 10th, she set me up for a consult for a colonoscopy to be done -- which I received the appointment in the mail two weeks later and it was actually scheduled for April of the following year -- we're talking six more months out -- and I'd already been in pain for eight months already and suffering because of this. But I didn't let that stand in front of me, so I called the department that scheduled that appointment and they told me that that's the normal time -- usually around six months -- before you could get a colonoscopy. There was nothing that she could have done to get it earlier, that only way you could get it done earlier was to request your physician to write the chief GI surgeon or either the gastrologist to get it done sooner. Or you could call each day to see if anyone dropped off from the appointment schedule. And I asked her could she write my name down and call me if someone dropped off? She said she couldn't do that. She called me the next morning at 9:30 and asked me if I could come to an appointment around 2:30 that day which I did. And that's when I was set up for the colonoscopy to be done at the Fort Jackson military hospital on December the 9th. So from January to December the 9th was a whole year.
We're going to stop here a second. 'She' can't do that and she did. She really can't -- we'll go into that in a second. But she said she couldn't and most likely said that because she didn't want to make a promise she couldn't keep. She probably receives several calls a week (if not a day) like Coates' call.
It's not possible.
At the time Coates spoke to the woman, he was one person needing a procedure for which there was scheduling required.
Along with Barry Coates, 'she' was facing others wanting to get in sooner. Let's pretend for just one minute that this was just five people. 'She' doesn't have time to call them and let them know.
I'm not being sarcastic. 'She' has other duties.
But this can be set up automatically and should be. The VA, for any scheduled procedure, should have an automated system where people waiting for a procedure and willing to take a spot that opens before their own are automatically called and hear, "Hello, veteran. Tomorrow at 2:00 pm [or whatever time] we now have a cancellation for [whatever procedure]. We will be filling it on a first call first serve basis. If you are interested in that time slot, please contact us."
Now that alone's going to add a lot of work to 'she' (because it's going to be more than five people calling and she'll have to explain over and over to all but one that the slot is now filled) but it can be done and it can be automated. Can be and should be. (And if you automated the outgoing call and also automated the first-come-first serve aspect, 'she' wouldn't have to do any additional calls on this.)
Automation also means 'she' doesn't have 140 post-its on her desk that she has to keep track of regarding 'call me if there's a last minute opening.'
The VA needs to automate the system immediately. These are things that can and should be done and that the VA Secretary should have already started implementing.
US House Rep Julia Brownley: [. . .] Have you had any formal apology from the VA?
Barry Coates: None.
"Before I walked up here, I apologized to Mr. Coates," the VA's Lynch wanted to insist. Yes, yes, you did. At a Congressional hearing, after Barry Coates had testified -- and testified that no one in the VA had apologized to him, after Coates was done testifying and right before Lynch was about to, he rushed to get in a quick and perfunctory -- we all saw it -- 'apology.' And to make clear just how insincere it was, Lynch wanted to make his first statement to the Committee, before he started reading from his prepared remarks, "Before I walked up here, I apologized to Mr. Coates." Give him a gold star -- for insincerity. Coates had stated he did not receive an institutional disclosure (Chair Miller had specifically asked) and to make the 'apology' even more insincere, Lynch wanted to immediately rush into "if he did not receive an institutional disclosure" -- it's not if. It's testimony to the Committee.
Chair Jeff Miller: Your recent national consulate delayed review revealed two deaths in Arizona but Committee investigation shows that it appears that it could be much worse than you know. Or, if you do know that it's worse than what the Committee was told? So I want to tell you about some information that we have received here in the Committee as it relates to Phoenix. I've been made aware of internal e-mails from within the VA that suggest that Phoenix VA may have been using an unofficial electronic waiting list where veterans were placed on that unofficial list until an appointment became available. These lists were supposedly designed to give the appearance that veterans were only waiting for appointments for 24, 25 days or less and they potentially contained thousands of names. In cross-referencing the two lists, it appears there could be as many as 40 veterans whose deaths could be related to delays in care. Were you made aware of any of these unofficial lists in any part of your lookback?
Dr. Thomas Lynch: Mr. Chairman, I was not. And Mr. Chairman, I would say that I have tried to work with your Committee, I have visited with your staff. I was in Atlanta. I was in Columbia. I was in Augusta when you made those visits. I have tried to share the information that we have gained as we are obtaining it. I know it's not perfect information, sir, but I know that there's a desire on your part to know that information as we obtain it. I am more than willing to meet with your staffers and take their information so that I can use it, sir. If I don't have that information, I can't act on it.
Chair Jeff Miller: So your people had two lists and they even kept it from your knowledge so my question is: Does that make you even internally question the validity of the information being utilized in your lookback or review?
Dr. Thomas Lynch: At the moment, sir, it does not. But I am open. I am happy to meet with your staffers. I'm happy to look at the data so that we can understand it and see what the issues and the problems are.
Chair Jeff Miller: I want to provide you with a request for a preservation order for all potential evidence at Phoenix. And I would also ask the Inspector General for health care, Mr. Day, to look into this issue as soon as possible. I will be putting a letter to you as quickly -- but I want to make this as an official request, on the record, and we are ready to assist by providing our input and any assistance that Dr. Day may need as he goes through. It's been mentioned a couple of times in here about Dorn being awarded a little over a million dollars -- one-million-point-two or some number like that -- to help in the backlog of fee base colonoscopy. The money was provided in September of 2011. I have still not been able to get a solid answer where that money went. So I hope you'll be able to provide some insight this afternoon.
Dr. Thomas Lynch: Mr. Chairman, I know that that information has passed through VHA. I took the opportunity to listen to the Deputy Secretary's hearing the other day. I know he has committed to increasing the communication with Congress and with this Committee and I support his efforts and will do what I can to get you the information that you need, sir.
Chair Jeff Miller: So, again, another piece of information the Committee awaits. I specifically asked for a complete accounting of those dollars when I was at Dorn earlier this year. On the 22nd of February, in a Health Committee hearing, Dr. [US House Rep Dan] Benishek asked Dr. [Robert] Petzel to provide a list of circumstances surrounding the removal of six SES employees over the last two years. Dr. Petzel promised at that hearing that he would provide that information at the end of that week -- this is February 26th. It's been six weeks since the Committee asked for the information. We have not received it. This information was referenced in a Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity that was chaired by Mr. Florez. And, by the way, Mr. Florez is absent today because he is at the memorial for Fort Hood in Texas. And the Committee staff has made numerous requests I would also note that in your -- this statistic was also noted in your written statement for this hearing. So why is VA keeping this information from the Committee when it was an entirely reasonable request?
Dr. Thomas Lynch: Sir, I wish I had an answer for you that you would find acceptable. I can only repeat that I support the Deputy Secretary's efforts to get you the information in a timely fashion.
Chair Jeff Miller: You know, I have a bill right now, Dr. Lynch, that gives the Secretary additional flexibility to fire SES employees out of the 320,000 employees at the Dept of Veterans Affairs we're only talking about 450 individuals. The Secretary is pushing back, saying that he has the tools and that he has, in fact, taken the necessary steps. And we're talking about six people. And we've been waiting months now to get that information. And I just -- as the Chairman and the Subcommittee Chairmen and the Ranking Members just sit here wondering why in the world it takes so long?
We could continue but we don't have the space. Visit the House Veterans Affairs Committee's VA Accountability Watch for more examples. On veterans issues, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Nick McCormick has a column at Defense One where he advocates for the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans:
The same day we placed American flags on the Mall, we welcomed the introduction of the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act. The bill was introduced by the first Iraq war veteran to serve in the Senate, John Walsh of Montana. In announcing the legislation and the need for new action, Sen. Walsh shared how this issue has personally affected him, including how one of the soldiers he commanded in the Montana National Guard died by suicide when the unit returned home from Iraq.
Sen. Walsh’s bill would extend VA health care for some veterans from 5 to 15 years, review wrongful discharges, and ensure greater collaboration between VA and DoD to ensure a seamless transition of care for our men and women in uniform.
Now, the House needs to introduce a similar bill and more senators from both parties need to support this bill. The biggest request veterans and the American public need to demand from Congress is this: for once, please do not let the stale election-year politics of old stand in the way of enacting necessary reforms that will save lives.
Yesterday's snapshot covered Secretary of State John Kerry's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Wally reported on it in "Learn the Constitution, John Kerry," Ruth in "Rand Paul's security concerns re: Benghazi," Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!" and Cedric's "John Kerry knows nothing about money" joint-post noted one aspect and Ava covered the hearing in "John Kerry gets prissy and rude before the Senate (Ava)." (Ava will be back at Trina's site tonight to report on today's House Veterans Affair Committee and tonight Ruth will continue to cover Senator Rand Paul's exchange with Kerry.)
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's War Crimes continue, oil battles continue ..."
"Talk Nation Radio: Betsy Leondar-Wright on Cross-C..."
"Is the Obama Administration telling the American p..."
"US illegal spying included spying on human rights ..."
"One Nation the U.S. Actually Should Liberate (Davi..."
"Repeats"
"revenge - the good"
"What they tell us, what they don't"
"The wrong focus"
"Ed Snowden"
"Iraq and polio"
"No accountability at the VA (Ava)"
"Laughable John Kerry says retirement is the same as death"
"Child marriage"
"Ass Backwards"
"John Kerry knows nothing about money"
"THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!"
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
BOTOX ADDICT JOHN KERRY TRAIPSED BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE YESTERDAY AND DECLARED:
And I want to thank you for the way this Committee stands up for an active internationalist American foreign policy. I spent enough time in Congress to know not to call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. But when you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, I think it's safe to and if you ad OCO [Overseas Contingeny Operations] it's 50.1 -- I think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget, when it comes to the State Dept and USAID, tax payers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.
NO, THAT'S $46.2 BILLION THAT COULD BE USED TO INCREASE JOBS IN THE U.S., RESTORE ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, FUND SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND MUCH MORE.
INSTEAD, IT'S USED TO FUND WAR PLANNING AND PROPAGANDA.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, KERRY REPLIED, "I'M WINKING AT YOU. IF MY EYES AREN'T MOVING, IT'S THE BOTOX, BUT INSIDE I'M WINING."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This morning in DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing to discuss the US active duty and reserve forces. Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Committee. Senator James Inhofe is the Ranking Member.
Chair Carl Levin: The Department’s fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes end strength reductions through fiscal year 2017 that would leave the nation with an Active Army of 450,000, or 20 percent less from its wartime high of 569,000; an Army National Guard of 335,000, or 6 percent less than its wartime high of 354,000; and the U.S. Army Reserve at 195,000, or 10 percent less than its high of 205,000. But these end strength numbers assume that the defense budget caps will be increased by $115 billion for fiscal years 2016 through 2019.
Appearing before the Committee were Gen Ray Odierno (Chief of Staff of the Army), Gen Frank Grass (Chief of the National Guard Bureau) and Lt Gen Jeffrey Talley (Chief of the Army and Commanding General of the US Army Reserve Command).
In his opening remarks, Odierno broke from his prepared statement.
Gen Ray Odierno: Before I start, I just want to let the Committee know as soon as we're done with the hearing, I'll be traveling to Fort Hood to visit with the soldiers, family, commanders, those wounded and will attend the memorial service tomorrow. Things continue to progress there. I'm satisfied that -- with the over all -- as we continue to investigate and look at this -- I'm satisfied that if we had not implemented some of the lessons learned in 2009, the tragedy could have been much worse than it was. However, we still have much to learn about what happened and why and what we have to do in terms of our mental health screening assessments as well as taking care of our soldiers. And the Army is committed to thoroughly understanding what we must do and the actions we must take. And we look forward to reporting to you what we have found as we continue and conclude our investigations at Fort Hood.
Those were his remarks on last week's Fort Hood shooting. Eleanor Goldberg (Huffington Post) sums it up, "On Wednesday afternoon, Ivan Lopez, 34, opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas, killing three and injuring 16 before turning the gun on himself. The violence was particularly disheartening because Fort Hood was the site of the worst mass killing at an American military installation, which left 13 people dead and more than 30 injured in 2009." Will Weissert and Danica Coto (AP) report, "On Friday, authorities formally identified the dead as 39-year-old Daniel Ferguson, of Mulberry, Fla.; 38-year-old Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez, of Puerto Rico; and 37-year-old Timothy Owens, of Effingham, Ill."
I wasn't at that hearing, a friend who was passed it on. I was at today's Senate Foreign Relations hearing wasting my time -- or rather the Committee and John Kerry wasting my time. Secretary of State John Kerry was the only witness appearing before the Committee. Senator Robert Menendez is the Committee Chair and Bob Corker is the Ranking Member.
The hearing was a joke, a really bad joke.
Kerry denounced Venezuela's government for making 'dangerous choices.' But Kerry didn't say one damn word about the War Crimes going on in Iraq.
The US government is making dangerous choices -- but in doing so, they're making very clear that they don't give a damn about democracy or -- more important to the world -- they don't give a damn about humanity which is why they installed and propped -- and continue to prop up.
Kerry tried to boast, "No other nation can give people the confidence to come together and confront some of the most difficult challenges in the same way that we are privileged to do."
They're not giving people that. Kerry can pretend all he wants but all the US government is demonstrating is what it demonstrated under Bully Boy Bush, a crass disregard for human rights and the law.
Kerry had the nerve to denounce Russia for "contrived" excuses. Forget the Iraq War -- and the lies the US government -- including Democrats in Congress -- told. Kerry screamed for war on Syria based on 'gassing' people to death with 'chemical weapons.' But as Seymour Hersh's "The Red Line and the Rat Line," published by The London Review of Books over the weekend makes clear, Kerry, Barack Obama and others were engaged in propaganda to sell a war. (Somebody slide the article over to Senator Ben Cardin -- his deep stupidity might be mitigated were he to read Hersh's report.) (For more on Hersh's report see Mike's "Can dickless Robert Parry go to a nursing home already?" and Elaine's "Sy Hersh" -- also Marcia's "Polio" covered polio in Iraq.)
The State Dept wants approximately one billion for Iraq for the next fiscal year and the hearing was on the budget. But Kerry didn't want to discuss the big ticket item. No one did. Only one senator even said the word "Iraq."
Yet . . .
You may recognize the above in bold. You may think it's the warning the US Embassy in Baghdad issued
that we noted in yesterday's snapshot. It's not. It's the warning that the US Embassy in Baghdad issued today. It's so dangerous that they have repeated the warning.
But John Kerry didn't care and he didn't care to address Iraq.
Here's his full testimony on Iraq, "We've issued more special immigration visas in Afghanistan -- and in Iraq, incidentally -- than at any previous year." That was in reply to an Afghanistan question from Senator Jeanne Shaheen. However, when she asked him about Iraq?
He didn't have a word for it, not even "incidentally."
He did say this.
Secretary John Kerry: And I want to thank you for the way this Committee stands up for an active internationalist American foreign policy. I spent enough time in Congress to know not to call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. But when you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, I think it's safe to and if you ad OCO [Overseas Contingeny Operations] it's 50.1 -- I think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget, when it comes to the State Dept and USAID, tax payers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.
Pretty big words in many ways but especially when Friday brought the news of the State Dept being unable to account for $6 billion. If you're late to the topic, refer to the report by Karen DeYoung (Washington Post).
Only one senator wanted to raise the issue of the $6 billion missing dollars.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: On a note that is not so positive, last week it came to light that the State Dept's Office of Inspector General has discovered that over the past six years contracts worth more than 6 billion dollars have lacked complete and -- in some cases -- no records and that many of the files for contracts supporting our US mission in Iraq couldn't be located. So I was wondering if you could tell us what actions the State Dept is taking in response to the concerns that have been raised by the Inspector Generals?
Secretary John Kerry: Well let me begin by saying that the, uh, we hadn't had an Inspector General at the State Dept for [stops speaking to turn around and ask his staff a question] . . . What? [Continues testimony] for three-and-a-half years or more there was no Inspector General.
Pause.
The stupidity.
There's no excuse for it.
There wasn't an inspector general for Barack's entire first term.
After January 2008, there was no State Dept IG in Bully Boy's Bush's final year of occupying the Oval Office. Since January 2008 until September of 2013, the office was empty.
Now I might not want to own up to that before Congress too if I was in violation of the 1978 law requiring an IG.
Four years and nine months. That's the answer if you're just speaking of Barack's tenure as US president. But the actual answer is that the US State Dept was without an IG for five years and eight months.
It's really sad (a) that Secretary Kerry didn't know the answer on his own and (b) that his staff he consulted mid-answer didn't know the correct answer.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: And I appreciate your swift action to try and --
Secretary John Kerry: I decided that we needed -- It's important, it's an important part of oversight. So I hired Steve Linick who is our current Inspector General who came from FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] but who's also been a former federal prosecutor is an outstanding attorney and person for the job. And-and I welcome the oversight. That's number one. Number two, I began this process looking at our liabilities. It came from my time here on the Committee [prior to becoming Secretary of State, Kerry was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] -- when I traveled to Afghanistan and saw the contracting and recognized the corruption that existed in Afghanistan itself and other problems. So when I first came in, I told folks we've got to really get a handle on what's happening here. What we found is -- and what this Inspector General report confirms -- is that there have been some problems in just paper work management. We know where the money -- No money, no six billion dollars has been lost. We-we --- The money is accountable. But it's keeping up with the paperwork. Part of the problem is, we have learned, and this is really important to the budget process, every single entity of government where we're managing contracting is under-resourced, under-staffed and it's hard to keep up with the paper. You say, "Well why not go electronic?" Well some of these places electronic isn't exactly an option -- Afghanistan or some other places. But it takes people and so we are under-resourced with respect to that. But we are on it the Deputy Secretary of State for Management is pursuing this and we will have a report for the Inspector General showing exactly where they are and where they are going and this is a good process. And I think people should welcome this kind of oversight and process and get on top of things.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"53 reported dead in Iraq as Nouri's War Crimes con..."
"Indefinite Detention Should End for Prisoner Detai..."
"Property Managers Change Policies After Denying Re..."
"Learn the Constitution, John Kerry"
"John Kerry gets prissy and rude before the Senate (Ava)"
"Rand Paul's security concerns re: Benghazi"
"More episodes please"
"How to get The New Yorker to publish Hersh?"
"Music"
"Again on Sy Hersh's report"
"Save us from the cowardly idiots"
"What a stupid stunt"
"The Mindy Project"
"His $3 million visit to Belgium"
"THIS JUST IN! 'OUR' BECOMES 'HIS'!"
BOTOX ADDICT JOHN KERRY TRAIPSED BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE YESTERDAY AND DECLARED:
And I want to thank you for the way this Committee stands up for an active internationalist American foreign policy. I spent enough time in Congress to know not to call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. But when you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, I think it's safe to and if you ad OCO [Overseas Contingeny Operations] it's 50.1 -- I think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget, when it comes to the State Dept and USAID, tax payers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.
NO, THAT'S $46.2 BILLION THAT COULD BE USED TO INCREASE JOBS IN THE U.S., RESTORE ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, FUND SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND MUCH MORE.
INSTEAD, IT'S USED TO FUND WAR PLANNING AND PROPAGANDA.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, KERRY REPLIED, "I'M WINKING AT YOU. IF MY EYES AREN'T MOVING, IT'S THE BOTOX, BUT INSIDE I'M WINING."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This morning in DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing to discuss the US active duty and reserve forces. Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Committee. Senator James Inhofe is the Ranking Member.
Chair Carl Levin: The Department’s fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes end strength reductions through fiscal year 2017 that would leave the nation with an Active Army of 450,000, or 20 percent less from its wartime high of 569,000; an Army National Guard of 335,000, or 6 percent less than its wartime high of 354,000; and the U.S. Army Reserve at 195,000, or 10 percent less than its high of 205,000. But these end strength numbers assume that the defense budget caps will be increased by $115 billion for fiscal years 2016 through 2019.
Appearing before the Committee were Gen Ray Odierno (Chief of Staff of the Army), Gen Frank Grass (Chief of the National Guard Bureau) and Lt Gen Jeffrey Talley (Chief of the Army and Commanding General of the US Army Reserve Command).
In his opening remarks, Odierno broke from his prepared statement.
Gen Ray Odierno: Before I start, I just want to let the Committee know as soon as we're done with the hearing, I'll be traveling to Fort Hood to visit with the soldiers, family, commanders, those wounded and will attend the memorial service tomorrow. Things continue to progress there. I'm satisfied that -- with the over all -- as we continue to investigate and look at this -- I'm satisfied that if we had not implemented some of the lessons learned in 2009, the tragedy could have been much worse than it was. However, we still have much to learn about what happened and why and what we have to do in terms of our mental health screening assessments as well as taking care of our soldiers. And the Army is committed to thoroughly understanding what we must do and the actions we must take. And we look forward to reporting to you what we have found as we continue and conclude our investigations at Fort Hood.
Those were his remarks on last week's Fort Hood shooting. Eleanor Goldberg (Huffington Post) sums it up, "On Wednesday afternoon, Ivan Lopez, 34, opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas, killing three and injuring 16 before turning the gun on himself. The violence was particularly disheartening because Fort Hood was the site of the worst mass killing at an American military installation, which left 13 people dead and more than 30 injured in 2009." Will Weissert and Danica Coto (AP) report, "On Friday, authorities formally identified the dead as 39-year-old Daniel Ferguson, of Mulberry, Fla.; 38-year-old Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez, of Puerto Rico; and 37-year-old Timothy Owens, of Effingham, Ill."
I wasn't at that hearing, a friend who was passed it on. I was at today's Senate Foreign Relations hearing wasting my time -- or rather the Committee and John Kerry wasting my time. Secretary of State John Kerry was the only witness appearing before the Committee. Senator Robert Menendez is the Committee Chair and Bob Corker is the Ranking Member.
The hearing was a joke, a really bad joke.
Kerry denounced Venezuela's government for making 'dangerous choices.' But Kerry didn't say one damn word about the War Crimes going on in Iraq.
The US government is making dangerous choices -- but in doing so, they're making very clear that they don't give a damn about democracy or -- more important to the world -- they don't give a damn about humanity which is why they installed and propped -- and continue to prop up.
Kerry tried to boast, "No other nation can give people the confidence to come together and confront some of the most difficult challenges in the same way that we are privileged to do."
They're not giving people that. Kerry can pretend all he wants but all the US government is demonstrating is what it demonstrated under Bully Boy Bush, a crass disregard for human rights and the law.
Kerry had the nerve to denounce Russia for "contrived" excuses. Forget the Iraq War -- and the lies the US government -- including Democrats in Congress -- told. Kerry screamed for war on Syria based on 'gassing' people to death with 'chemical weapons.' But as Seymour Hersh's "The Red Line and the Rat Line," published by The London Review of Books over the weekend makes clear, Kerry, Barack Obama and others were engaged in propaganda to sell a war. (Somebody slide the article over to Senator Ben Cardin -- his deep stupidity might be mitigated were he to read Hersh's report.) (For more on Hersh's report see Mike's "Can dickless Robert Parry go to a nursing home already?" and Elaine's "Sy Hersh" -- also Marcia's "Polio" covered polio in Iraq.)
The State Dept wants approximately one billion for Iraq for the next fiscal year and the hearing was on the budget. But Kerry didn't want to discuss the big ticket item. No one did. Only one senator even said the word "Iraq."
Yet . . .
On
the eve of the anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime on
April 9, 2003, the U.S. Embassy advises U.S. citizens to restrict
movements around Baghdad, including travel through Baghdad International
Airport. U.S. government and Embassy-affiliated personnel are
restricting their use of the Baghdad International Airport through April
12. Beyond this date, American citizens are encouraged to evaluate all
travel plans after reviewing the latest Embassy messages. If you have
an emergency, please call the American Citizen Services emergency line
at 0760-030-4888 or 0770-443-1286.
The
U.S. Embassy recommends that U.S. citizens in all areas of Iraq,
including the IZ, maintain a heightened sense of security awareness and
take appropriate measures to enhance personal and operational security
at this time. U.S. citizens are advised to keep a low profile; vary
days, times, and routes of travel; and exercise caution while driving
and entering or exiting vehicles.
You may recognize the above in bold. You may think it's the warning the US Embassy in Baghdad issued
that we noted in yesterday's snapshot. It's not. It's the warning that the US Embassy in Baghdad issued today. It's so dangerous that they have repeated the warning.
But John Kerry didn't care and he didn't care to address Iraq.
Here's his full testimony on Iraq, "We've issued more special immigration visas in Afghanistan -- and in Iraq, incidentally -- than at any previous year." That was in reply to an Afghanistan question from Senator Jeanne Shaheen. However, when she asked him about Iraq?
He didn't have a word for it, not even "incidentally."
He did say this.
Secretary John Kerry: And I want to thank you for the way this Committee stands up for an active internationalist American foreign policy. I spent enough time in Congress to know not to call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. But when you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, I think it's safe to and if you ad OCO [Overseas Contingeny Operations] it's 50.1 -- I think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget, when it comes to the State Dept and USAID, tax payers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.
Pretty big words in many ways but especially when Friday brought the news of the State Dept being unable to account for $6 billion. If you're late to the topic, refer to the report by Karen DeYoung (Washington Post).
Only one senator wanted to raise the issue of the $6 billion missing dollars.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: On a note that is not so positive, last week it came to light that the State Dept's Office of Inspector General has discovered that over the past six years contracts worth more than 6 billion dollars have lacked complete and -- in some cases -- no records and that many of the files for contracts supporting our US mission in Iraq couldn't be located. So I was wondering if you could tell us what actions the State Dept is taking in response to the concerns that have been raised by the Inspector Generals?
Secretary John Kerry: Well let me begin by saying that the, uh, we hadn't had an Inspector General at the State Dept for [stops speaking to turn around and ask his staff a question] . . . What? [Continues testimony] for three-and-a-half years or more there was no Inspector General.
Pause.
The stupidity.
There's no excuse for it.
There wasn't an inspector general for Barack's entire first term.
After January 2008, there was no State Dept IG in Bully Boy's Bush's final year of occupying the Oval Office. Since January 2008 until September of 2013, the office was empty.
Now I might not want to own up to that before Congress too if I was in violation of the 1978 law requiring an IG.
Four years and nine months. That's the answer if you're just speaking of Barack's tenure as US president. But the actual answer is that the US State Dept was without an IG for five years and eight months.
It's really sad (a) that Secretary Kerry didn't know the answer on his own and (b) that his staff he consulted mid-answer didn't know the correct answer.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: And I appreciate your swift action to try and --
Secretary John Kerry: I decided that we needed -- It's important, it's an important part of oversight. So I hired Steve Linick who is our current Inspector General who came from FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] but who's also been a former federal prosecutor is an outstanding attorney and person for the job. And-and I welcome the oversight. That's number one. Number two, I began this process looking at our liabilities. It came from my time here on the Committee [prior to becoming Secretary of State, Kerry was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] -- when I traveled to Afghanistan and saw the contracting and recognized the corruption that existed in Afghanistan itself and other problems. So when I first came in, I told folks we've got to really get a handle on what's happening here. What we found is -- and what this Inspector General report confirms -- is that there have been some problems in just paper work management. We know where the money -- No money, no six billion dollars has been lost. We-we --- The money is accountable. But it's keeping up with the paperwork. Part of the problem is, we have learned, and this is really important to the budget process, every single entity of government where we're managing contracting is under-resourced, under-staffed and it's hard to keep up with the paper. You say, "Well why not go electronic?" Well some of these places electronic isn't exactly an option -- Afghanistan or some other places. But it takes people and so we are under-resourced with respect to that. But we are on it the Deputy Secretary of State for Management is pursuing this and we will have a report for the Inspector General showing exactly where they are and where they are going and this is a good process. And I think people should welcome this kind of oversight and process and get on top of things.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"53 reported dead in Iraq as Nouri's War Crimes con..."
"Indefinite Detention Should End for Prisoner Detai..."
"Property Managers Change Policies After Denying Re..."
"Learn the Constitution, John Kerry"
"John Kerry gets prissy and rude before the Senate (Ava)"
"Rand Paul's security concerns re: Benghazi"
"More episodes please"
"How to get The New Yorker to publish Hersh?"
"Music"
"Again on Sy Hersh's report"
"Save us from the cowardly idiots"
"What a stupid stunt"
"The Mindy Project"
"His $3 million visit to Belgium"
"THIS JUST IN! 'OUR' BECOMES 'HIS'!"
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
THIS JUST IN! 'OUR' BECOMES 'HIS'!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
WHEN FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF NEEDED A LITTLE PICK ME UP LAST MONTH, HE JAUNTED OFF TO BELGIUM FOR 24 HOURS, HOPING TO IMPRESS FOREIGN MEDIA AND GARNER SOME LOVE.
WHILE THERE HE MADE HIS 'I LOVE WAR ON IRAQ' SPEECH AND HE ALSO SPENT $3 MILLION DOLLARS -- U.S. TAX PAYER DOLLARS.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O INSISTED HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO SPEND THE MONEY, "IT'S MINE! ALL OF IT! I'M GOING TO SPEND EVERY PENNY BEFORE THEY PUT ME OUT OF THIS HOUSE! IT'S ALL MINE! MINE!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Iraq is supposed to hold parliamentary elections April 30th. The outcome is supposed to determine who the prime minister is. Supposed to? Following the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the US government imposed Nouri al-Maliki on Iraq as prime minister. Following the March 2010 parliamentary elections, the US government imposed Nouri al-Maliki on Iraq as prime minister. Kurdistan Tribune's Kamal Chomani tells Joel Wing (Musings on Iraq), "What makes the elections more interesting is that all political parties, including Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, are unanimously trying to put an end to PM Maliki's authoritarian wishes, but it is very much clear that Maliki will win. The whole elections will be about Maliki. The elections are like a referendum on Maliki as in Turkey it was on Erdogan."
But the elections in 2010, the ones Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya? Those were a referendum as well even if US President Barack Obama chose to spit on the Iraqi voters by installing Nouri (via The Erbil Agreement) for a second term he didn't win. As Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted last month, "Which is to say the US forced a puppet government into power before it left, despite Prime Minister Maliki losing the last election, and put in place an election system so crooked that even the Maliki-appointed election commission resigned en masse yesterday rather than take part in April’s planned vote."
Will the pattern of the US government insisting Nouri be prime minister repeat or will Iraqis finally be able to determine for themselves who they want as a leader?
That may be the biggest news to come out of the election.
In 2010, Nouri decided he was too good to run with his political party (Dawa) so he created his own coalition: State of Law.
Being stupid and physically ugly doesn't make you an automatic member of State of Law, but it doesn't hurt. Reidar Visser (Gulf Analysis) offered yesterday that State of Law was witnessing a number of defections and he identifies two as being the most potentially damaging:
Firstly there is list 228, headed by Izzat Shahbandar as candidate no. 1 in Baghdad. It is also running in Wasit, Basra, Dhi Qar and Karbala. The list also includes former Iraqiyya member Abd al-Khadar Tahir, reflecting perhaps the fact that Shahbandar was formerly one of the Maliki aides considered most sympathetic to the idea of cooperating with Sunnis and secularists. Judging from the make-up of his list, though, the successes in this respect north of Baghdad remain limited, even after the split from Maliki.
Second there is list 211, associated with Sami al-Askari. It will run in most Shiite-majority governorates as well as in Diyala. Another leading figure on the list is Najaf governor Adnan al-Zurfi. Given the connection to Najaf, the list has links to Shiite religious circles in Iraq’s holy cities. At the same time these are politicians with a record of dialogue with the Americans and the West, perhaps more so than some of the more Iran-sympathetic circles within State of Law.
As the date looms, many interesting developments occur. Sunday's developments revolved around cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr. For example, All Iraq News reported:
The head of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, Ammar al-Hakim, and the head of Sadr Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, discussed the political situation and the next elections.
A statement received by All Iraq News Agency cited "Hakim met Sadr in Najaf province on last Saturday night."
"Hakim confirmed the necessity of adopting national unified stances and to consolidate dialogue among the political sides," the statement added.
Moqtada and al-Hakim have been close, working partners since the summer of 2013. Al-Monitor's Harith Hassan tells Joel Wing (Musings On Iraq), "Although Pro-Sadr block and Hakim’s coalition are running separately, it is very likely they will ally after the election, especially if they feel this move will help blocking Maliki’s attempt to win a third term." Moqtada had another high profile discussion Sunday. NINA noted:
Kurdistan leader Massoud Barzani discussed on Sunday with head of the Sadrists bloc cleric Moqtada al-Sadr the political and security situation in the country.
A statement by the presidency of the Region today, said that Barzani and al-Sadr held a telephone conversation during which they stressed the need to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled in a stable and quiet atmosphere.
Interesting since Moqtada was 'out of politics.' Clearly, that's not the case. He wouldn't be talking elections today with Ammar al-Hakim and with KRG President Massoud Barzani.
Moqtada al-Sadr announced his political retirement February 15th. February 18th, he delivered a speech -- CounterPunch posted the speech in full -- emphasizing his decision. February 26th, NINA noted the rumors that Moqtada left Iraq, "The sources noted in a press statement that Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr left today's afternoon the city of Najaf heading to the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to complete his religious studies and stay away from the political scene as he officially announced for all Iraqis." Yet March 14th, Moqtada returned to Iraq.
Clearly, Moqtada has not stepped away from the political scene. Things might be easier for Nouri if he had.
Who was it that got Moqtada to return? Who should Nouri blame for that?
From the March 14th snapshot:
Background. Nouri's big mouth ended up tanking his own two-day conference. For those who missed it, Nouri's fat mouth was flapping last Saturday insulting many as he spoke to France24. France 24's Mark Perelman interviewed (link is text and video) Nouri for a half hour broadcast which aired Saturday. In the interview, Nouri's well noted paranoia was on full display as he repeatedly declared, in the very first two minutes, his alleged 'victory' over those attempting to turn Iraq and Syria into one country ("there are goals to create a one state," "create a state -- one part in Syria and one part in Iraq"). He continued to gab and began accusing other countries of supporting terrorism (he was supposedly going to reveal proof of his gossip in the conference but, as usual, his fat mouth made empty promises). He also insulted Moqtada.
That's right, Moqtada returned because Nouri attacked him on French television. Alsumaria notes that a State of Law MP denounced Moqtada and Barzani's conversation. State of Law is clearly upset by Moqtada's return. They need to remember Nouri is the reason Moqtada is back.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"At least 30 reported dead in Iraq as Tony Blair re..."
"Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Drone Kil..."
"I hope the Administration doesn’t think such a pro..."
"Caterpillar Inc is a member of the corporate profi..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "When To Say Go..."
"Hejira"
"Nouri's Iraq: Another reporter assaulted, election..."
"I Hate The War"
"Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Drone Kil..."
"The Vote to Declassify Interrogation Report (Senat..."
"Real Unemployment at 12.7% (Senator Sanders)"
"Did Tina Fey run off ticket buyers again?"
"Can dickless Robert Parry go to a nursing home already?"
"scandal - the bad"
"Polio"
"Peter Dale Scott"
"Mickey Rooney passed away"
"Sy Hersh"
"The Drone War"
"The bully goes down"
"ObamaCare cuts Medicare funding"
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Will prayers be enough for Iraq?
- TV: Saturday Night Live's latest problem
- Why Town & Country bombed
- TV: Joan & Melissa (Jess)
- Secretary of State John Kerry can't stop boasting
- Where are the jobs?
- This edition's playlist
- Hey, Washington Post,
- Tweet of the week
- Must read of the week
- VA sneaks in policy to close doors on veterans
- Blank Project: Neneh Cherry's comeback is worth th...
- Tweets, the Cuban 5 and the U.S. blockade (Cheryl ...
- Real Unemployment at 12.7% (Senator Bernie Sanders...
- Highlights
"He wants Chris Evans"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O EXPLODES!"
Sunday, April 06, 2014
THIS JUST IN! BARRY O EXPLODES!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IT'S ONE SNIT FIT AFTER ANOTHER AT THE WHITE HOUSE THESE DAYS.
AN ANGRY BARRY O SPENT THE BULK OF SATURDAY HURLING OBJECTS AT A WALL TO SMASH THEM.
WHAT HAD HIM SO ANGRY?
NO, IT WASN'T ANOTHER SELFIE.
IT WAS LEARNING THAT THE BLOCKBUSTER FILM CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER CALLS OUT THE WHITE HOUSE POLICIES.
"I GOT F**KED!" SCREAMED BARRY O. "AND I DIDN'T EVEN GET F**KED, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN! THEY SCREWED ME OVER SO THE LEAST THEY COULD HAVE DONE IS SCREW ME! I MEAN CHRIS EVANS, HUBBA, HUBBA, HUBBA! I'D RIDE HIS FLAGPOLE LIKE OLD GLORY!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Will today be remembered as the day Iraq War supporter Hillary Clinton's presidential dreams vanished?
Possibly.
A letter from [PDF format warning] the Office of Inspector General letter might just do the trick.
Fox News noted:
The Office of Inspector General, in a March 20 "management alert" to department leaders, said the department has failed to provide all or some of the files for $6 billion worth of contracts in the last six years.
"The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," the memo said.
Adam Kredo (Free Beacon) noted, "The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report."
But nobody appeared to know what they had.
Let's first note how this plays out in a campaign. The obvious question is one of competency as in, "Can she handle the presidency when she couldn't even handle the State Dept budget?"
It needs to be noted that Hillary has spent her year-plus since resigning as Secretary of State with only one public goal: To present herself baddest bitch in the whole damn town.
She's screamed for war, compared people to Hitler -- Let's just stop for a moment on that. How do you become president when you're screaming "Hitler!" at someone?
At any rate, she's attempted to prove just how tough she is -- as if anyone ever doubted she could be cold blooded or ruthless.
And now this comes up.
How is John Kerry better Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton?
There are a lot of variables which go to opinion. And there are some people who would argue that neither are good in their positions.
But these are appointments, these people are not elected, they are appointed. Since the American people had no say in the process -- despite paying their salaries -- it is especially important that they do their jobs and do the jobs professionally. In a democracy, you're supposed to have an open government.
Does Hillary grasp that?
John Kerry did.
Let's drop back to the April 17, 2013 snapshot, where we reported on that day's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:
Chair Ed Royce: I'd also like to call your attention to the State Department's Inspector General's Office. This is the key independent office looking at waste and fraud. Mr. Secretary, as of today, there has been no permanent State Department Inspector General for over five years. This includes President Obama's entire first term. The Committee raised this issue in a bi-partisan letter sent to you in February and we would like to see an immediate appointment to this position.
Secretary John Kerry: On the IG, you're absolutely correct. We're -- we're trying to fill a number of positions right now, the IG among them. The greatest difficulty that I'm finding now that I'm on the other side of the fence is frankly the vetting process. And I've got some folks that I selected way back in February when I first came in and it's now April and I'm still waiting for the vetting to move. I've talked to the White House. They're totally on board. They're trying to get it moved. So I hope that within a very short span of time, you're going to see these slots filled. They need to be. And that's just the bottom line. It's important and I commit to you, we will.
Chair Ed Royce: I think this is the longest gap that we've had in the history of this position. So if you could talk to the President about this in short order, we would very much appreciate it.
Secretary John Kerry: I don't need to talk to the President, we're going to get this done. We know it and we're trying to get the right people. Matching person to task and also clearing all the other hurdles, as I am finding, is not as easy as one always thinks. But we'll get it done.
Kerry kept his word. As Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported yesterday, "The warning was the second 'management alert' in State Department history, both issued by new Inspector General Steve Linick. Linick took over the job in late September, after it had been vacant for nearly six years."
For Hillary's entire four years as Secretary of State, she didn't feel she need to be accountable. She wasn't about to 'subject' herself to oversight.
She proved to be hostile to it.
It's this sort of thing that made many hate her -- yes, hate -- as First Lady. She thought she could do whatever she wanted with, for example, health care and do it away from the public eye and from any oversight. She had the chance, as Secretary of State, to embrace democracy and she chose not to.
$6 billion is unaccounted for and that's largely from her four years.
John Kerry only had to be asked once publicly by Congress about the IG. And he didn't have to puzzle it. He didn't have to take the question for the record. He immediately agreed that an IG was necessary and that there would be someone appointed to that position and that they were already working on it.
But for her entire four year term as Secretary of State, Hillary avoided oversight, she subverted democracy and, in the process, she appears to be unable to account for billions of US taxpayer dollars.
That doesn't say "presidential." And it means "Travelgate" and all the other scandals or 'scandals' (I didn't think there was anything there beneath the smoke) come back to haunt her. Secretary of State was supposed to be the prestige position that propelled Hillary to a new level but that didn't happen.
A comment on DeYoung's article is confusing:
7:11 AM CST
Once
again paying the price for the corrupted GOP refusing to approve needed
vital personnel to protect us from the vast network of fraud establish
under W went he rented out our government functions to his highest
campaign contributors. W belongs in a cage at The Hague.
Is Sleeve stating that the money that's missing/unaccounted for from 2008 to present is Republicans' fault?
If so, is Sleeve saying ("refusing to approve needed vital personnel") that the Republicans in the Senate must have blocked a nomination for the State Dept IG?
If that's what's Sleeve's saying, Sleeve is wrong.
There was no nominee.
And Republicans in Congress joined with Democrats in raising the issue in public letters to the White House and Republicans in the House tended to raise this issue repeatedly.
December 7, 2011 we reported on the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing.
Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz: Before recognizing Ranking Member [John] Tierney, I'd like to note that the Defense Dept, State Dept, USAID and SIGAR will not have IGs in January. In May of this year, I wrote the President asking him to move without delay to appoint replacements. That letter was signed by Senators [Joe] Lieberman, [Susan] Collins, [Claire] McCaskill and [Rob] Portman, as well as [House Oversight Committee] Chairman [Darrell] Issa and Ranking Member [Elijah] Cummings and Ranking Member Tierney. I'd like to place a copy of htis record into the record. Without objection, so ordered. To my knowledge, the President has yet to nominate any of these replacements, nor has he responded to this letter. I find that totally unacceptable. This is a massive, massive effort. It's going to take some leadership from the White House. These jobs cannot and will not be done if the president fails to make these appointments. Upon taking office, President Obama promised that his administration would be "the most open and transparent in history." You cannot achieve transparency without inspectors general. Again, I urge President Obama and the Senate to nominate and confirm inspectors general to fill these vacancies and without delay.
So don't blame Republicans or Democrats in Congress for what Hillary did as Secretary of State. Let's note
Speical Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen from that same hearing:
SIGIR
Stuart Bowen: First, I am concerned about maintaining SIGIR's ability
to get the information we need to complete ongoing audits and
investigations and to continue to provide the kind of comprehensive
Quarterly Report coverage that the Congress has come to expect from us.
The State Department recently instituted a new bureaucratic process,
requiring the channeling of information that we request from the Embassy
through Foggy Bottom offices. This process inevitably will cause
delays, impede our capacity to deal directly with the individuals in
Iraq responsible for providing the necessary data, and thus reduce our
responsiveness. Symptomatic of this bureaucratic development, one of my
investigators, working jointly with the FBI on a criminal case, recently
was refused information by the State Department regarding a potential
subject (who is a State employee). State directed my investigator to use
the "audit process" to obtain this investigative information. Worse,
he was challenged as to whether the information, which he had requested
in good faith, was even related to "reconstruction funding." This
development is just the latest quandary in a predicament-filled year,
during which the State Department has repeatedly raised fallacious
objections to varying SIGIR requests. I thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member -- and the full Committee's leadership -- for their steadfast
support of our oversight mission; but these recent issues underscore
the reality of the continuing oversight challenges that confront us.
Attending hearings on Iraq and what the State Dept was doing there was very frustrating and not just for me watching the interaction but for members of Congress. As we have noted repeatedly since the State Dept took over the US mission in Iraq in October of 2011, they did so with no transparency. They attempted to circumvent Stuart Bowen and his office (which is no more today even though the State Dept continues to have a budget of approximately a billion each year just on Iraq) and they refused to inform his office or the Congress what they were doing.
How bad was it?
For one example, let's drop back to the December 1, 2011 snapshot which covered the November 30th hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East ans South Asia. The State Dept was represented by Brooke Darby.
US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Madame Deputy
Assistant Secretary, welcome. Is it your testimony here today that the
State Dept is fully committed to transparency and accountability with
respect to any and all programs it has oversight and responsibility for
in Iraq?
Brooke
Darby: We take our responsibility for accountability and cooperation
with all of the audit entities, with Congress very, very seriously.
US
House Rep Gerald Connolly: No, ma'am, that was not my question. Is it
your testimony that you're fully committed to transparency and
accountability with respect to those responsibilities?
Brooke Darby: We are absolutely committed to accountability.
US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Full accountability? Full transparency and accountability?
Brooke Darby: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how you define that so . . .
US
House Rep Gerald Connolly: Well I guess I'm not sure why you avoid the
word. That was my question and you've ducked it three times. Are we
or are we not, is the State Dept committed to full transparency and
accountability to the tax payers in the United States and the people who
served in Iraq or not?
Brooke
Darby: We absolutely are accountable to the tax payers, to our
Congress and to all of the oversight bodies who are looking into how we
are spending our dollars, whether our programs are achieving success.
We are absolutely --
US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Alright. I'll sort of take that as a commitment.
This was characteristic of Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The Congress was unable to get answers -- especially ahead of the transfer of Iraq from a DoD-led mission to a State Dept-led one and in all the time that followed that transfer.
Six billion is unaccounted for. And the bulk of it is from Hillary's term as Secretary of State. She came in with no IG and she demanded no IG. She served four years without any check or oversight. And she and her people stonewalled Congress and any body or official attempting to provide oversight.
The missing money is a mark against her and against what she tries to pass off as "leadership." No oversight, no accountability, that's not leadership in a democracy.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"State Dept can't account for 6 billion in funds"
"#WaveOfAction Day 1 ~ Toward A New Paradigm (David..."
"CCR Responds to Senate Intelligence Committee’s Vo..."
"Wyden, Udall on Revelations that Intelligence Agen..."
"Buzz for Leta Hong Fincher's Leftover Women (Zed B..."
"Marvel's worst villain (spoilers)"
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
"Brokeback Mountain?"
"Raising Hope goes out sucking"
"Ugly Rebecca Solnit"
"scandal"
"Music"
"Unforgettable returns"
"Easy Zucchini Parmesan in the Kitchen"
"More money wasted overseas"
"How could he?"
"THIS JUST IN! BETRAYED!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)