Wednesday, March 11, 2015

THIS JUST IN! AND THE HUFFY BIKE HE RODE IN ON!


 
BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE
 
 
TODAY ELDERLY SECRETARY JOHN KERRY APPEARED BEFORE THE CONGRESS LOOKING ALL GLUM LIKE SOMEONE FORGOT TO GIVE HIM A COFFEE MUG ON
NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS’ DAY.
 
HE SLAMMED REPUBLICANS WHO WROTE A LETTER TO IRAN – A PUBLIC LETTER.
 
REACHED FOR COMMENT AFTER THE HEARING BY THESE REPORTERS, KERRY BRISTLED WHEN REMINDED THAT WHILE RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2004, HE INSISTED THAT THE FOREIGN LEADERS HE SPOKE TO PRIVATELY WANTED BULLY BOY BUSH TO LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE.
 
WHEN FURTHER REMINDED THAT HIS SECRET TALKS WERE CALLED OUT, KERRY INSISTED THAT THEY WERE “SECRET – SEE IT WAS GOSSIP.  AND EVERYONE KNOWS I’M A CATTY GOSSIP.  SO THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.”
 
AS HE STORMED OFF HE NOTED HE DIDN’T EVEN GET A CARD TODAY.
 
THESE REPORTERS ATTEMPTED TO INFORM HIM THE HOLIDAY DID NOT ROLL AROUND UNTIL MARCH 22ND BUT HE HAD HAD ALREADY STORMED OFF.
 
      •  
FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 
This morning, US Senator John McCain declared, "Indeed, all four of the military service chiefs have testified that defense spending at sequestration levels would put American lives at risk. Now more than ever, a strong Navy and Marine Corps are essential to our nation's ability to deter adversaries, assure allies and defend our national interests."


He was speaking at a budget hearing the Senate Armed Services Committee was holding.  Mccain is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jack Reed is the Ranking Member.  The witnesses appearing before them were Gen Joseph Dunford Jr (Commandant of the Marine Corps), Secretary of the Navy Raymond Mabus Jr. and Adm John Greenert (Chief of Naval Operations).

We'll come back to the hearing in a moment.

But let's think about what the Chair was saying.

Not in terms of the US but in terms of Iraq.

Nouri al-Maliki was prime minister of Iraq from 2006 - 2014.  There were no real public works programs to repair Iraq's crumbling infrastructure.  There were times when the yearly budget was such that Nouri could have given every Iraqi citizen in the country a billion dollars.  But didn't.

The money also didn't go to help address Iraq's problems -- such as the severe shortage of nurses and doctors (but especially nurses).  Instead, Nouri was fine with bringing in nurses from other countries.

This despite double-digit unemployment in Iraq and a severe need for employment.

Now there was money for Nouri's son to amass a fleet of sports cars in London as well as a bachelor pad where he -- contrary to the strict Shi'ite beliefs Nouri is supposed to hold (supposed to) -- entertained woman after woman.  There was money for Nouri's son to party.

But there was no money spent on the Iraqi people.

Nouri created his own political slate and dubbed it State and Law.

The point being, Nouri insisted, he was law and order and restoring that to Iraq.

And he ran in 2010 on the (false) claim that he'd restored order to Iraq.

The one thing he did pour money into was the Iraqi forces.

(Not the Peshmerga.  The Kurdish Regional Government paid the Peshmerga out of their portion of the national budget.)

In fact, the Iraqi forces were so 'covered' by Nouri, he was able to say, "I got this."

He was able to say, "I got this" -- and to refuse to US training for them.


This was noted in the November 30, 2011 House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia hearing on Iraq.  We covered it in the next day's snapshot (December 1, 2011).  The Ranking Member, US House Rep Gary Ackerman, noted how the US training program was being publicly rebuked by the Ministry of the Interior.  They did not want or need US trainers.  That was made clear.  (There was no Minister of the Interior.  Nouri refused to nominate anyone for the post so that he could control the Ministry himself.)

They didn't show up for training, these forces.

What's changed since then?

Not much.

CBS News reported Monday:


CBS News correspondent Holly Williams reports there are already more than 2,500 U.S. military advisers and trainers in Iraq, but Dempsey said their work is being hindered by the fact that Iraqi units sometimes fail to show up for training, or arrive without the proper equipment.
"Right now we don't need more advisers on the ground," Dempsey told reporters on board the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, alongside his counterpart French Gen. Pierre de Villiers.
"We've got trainers and advisers that are waiting for some of the Iraqi units to show up, and when they've shown up -- a handful of them -- they've shown up understrength and sometimes without the proper equipment. The Iraqi government can actually fix that themselves," said Dempsey.


Back at the 2011 hearing when Ackerman was noting the Iraqi forces didn't want US training, he also noted that the Iraqi forces were unable to provide security to the country by themselves as he questioned the State Dept's Brooke Darby:
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?
Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?
[long pause]
 
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye."  Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.


When will they be able to stand up?


Not then.

And apparently still not now.

In fairness to them, it turns out some of Nouri's spending was wasted on corruption and on paying people for service that they were not actually performing.

But the US is yet again working on training.

Iraqi forces, by themselves, are still not able to meet the goals McCain expects from US allies: "to deter adversaries, assure allies and defend our national interests."
 
Recommended: “Iraq snapshot”
“Do they need GPS to find Tikrit?”
“The world is shocked -- shocked! -- that invaders ...”
“Who's following The Following?”
“As a 2008 Hillary supporter, I found her press briefing hugely disappointing”
“The Originals”
“Hart of Dixie does better in ratings than Jane The Virgin”
“Look what the unions are doing now”
“Not a fan of Jennifer Lawrence”
“Barack attacks again”
“old lady hillary clinton”
 





Posted by at

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

THIS JUST IN! RULES ARE HARD FOR HILLARY!

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


NEVER MIND WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COUNTRY.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT HER PERSONAL CONVENIENCE.




. 
THE WOMAN WHO WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH ABOUT HER JOB AS SECRETARY OF STATE TO DO WHAT WAS NEEDED, ONLY WHAT WAS CONVENIENT.  WHAT A SELLING POINT FOR HER CAMPAIGN.

AND FOR NOW?

CRANKY CLINTON ANNOUNCED TODAY SHE WOULD NOT BE TURNING OVER HER SERVERS.

IN OTHER WORDS, SHE'S NOT BEING OPEN, SHE'S NOT BEING HONEST BUT SHE WANTS YOUR VOTE SO SHE CAN TAKE HER CORRUPTION TO THE TOP!






Prensa Latina reports, "US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey said today that the self proclaimed Islamic State for Syria and Iraq, ISIS will be defeated at the same time that the local government increases is offensive against Tikrit and Al-Anbar."

Is that what he said? 

If that's what he said, he's an idiot.

As many observers have pointed out -- to stick only with Tikrit -- Iraq grabbing control of it from the Islamic State doesn't matter as much as what happens the day after liberation or 'liberation.'

Is there a reason for Sunnis to buy in?  A reason for them to feel the government out of Baghdad is a representative one.

Dempsey usually makes remarks about the need for a political solution. 

Maybe he forgot.

Or maybe Prensa Latina got it wrong.

Robert Burns (AP) reports, "Before arriving in the Iraqi capital, Dempsey said that he wanted to press the Shiite-dominated government to deliver on its promise to reconcile with the Sunni minority and to explain how it intends to balance its relations with Iran."


It's a shame that the Pentagon failed to release a transcript of the press conference.

It might have cleared up some errors.

Might have even mitigated some of the reactions to the press briefing.


At Rudaw's report on Dempsey's remarks at the press conference, the most popular reader comment is this:


They're spinning the story, what's happened is the Iranians have instructed Baghdad to get rid of the Americans, all of it, the air support, bases, training etc. and now the Americans are doing damage control, trying to save face. Fist they claimed Baghdad is not requesting more air support, now they're claiming that they want to "avoid civilian casualties", they have no such concerns in Syria or Yemen or Afghanistan. A month ago the Pentagon and the administration declared that they were planing to send additional advisers, special forces and around 4000 marines to Iraq, this past week they've changed their tone completely, even today Dempsey said Iraq "doesn't need" more US trainers or advisories.                       



Before anymore US troops are sent to Iraq, it would be good to know how the missing is seen in the region and in Iraq.  Not how it's seen by the US appointed and anointed rulers in Iraq, but by the people.


In America, some are saying the people have spoken.  For example, Andrew Tilghman (Military Times) writes, "According to a Rasmussen poll in early February, 52 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should send 'send combat troops back to Iraq as part of an international coalition to fight ISIS.' That's up from 48 percent in October. Meanwhile, the percentage of those opposed fell 8 points, to 28 percent from 36 percent in October."

A few problems.

"International coalition" isn't defined.

Second, Rasmussen?

Seriously.

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, their polling had Mitt Romney winning the 2012 election.

For those who've forgotten, Mitt Romney lost that election to Barack Obama.


Whatever the actual figure, I don't doubt that it's increased since October.

The US media's been selling fear non-stop since then.

It's attempted to stir up the public.  It's featured 'talkers' who've predicted mayhem on the streets of America from the Islamic State despite the fact that it's really not possible.

Homegrown terrorists launching an attack on US soil?

Very possible.

It's even possible that they might be terrorists who are sympathetic to the Islamic State.

But the Islamic State having fighters to spare, fighters who can easily cross into the US?

Not as simple as the talkers would insist.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

Posted by at

Sunday, March 08, 2015

THIS JUST IN! HILLARY HAS A PLAN!

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


REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY CLINTON INSISTED TO THESE REPORTERS THAT SHE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE.

ASKED HOW SHE WOULD BACK UP THAT ASSERTION, SHE REPLIED, "I DON'T HAVE TO.  AMERICA LOVES ME.  THOSE STUPID FOOLS WILL BELIEVE WHATEVER I TELL THEM!  GOTTA' GO, I'M INSTAGRAMMING!"







February 26th, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee heard from the VA led by Secretary Robert McDonald, we covered part of the hearing in Thursday's snapshot.  McDonald is in his seventh month on the job.  He replaced Eric Shinseki who resigned in disgrace.  As Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal told McDonald in the hearing, "That has been one of the downfalls of the VA to this point, the lack of reliable truthful information.  It was the downfall of your predecessor."


It was noted throughout the hearing and it sort of left a question mark hanging over whatever limited information the VA was able to provide in the hearing.  Blumenthal is the Ranking Member and Senator Johnny Isakson is the Chair.  The hearing was about the VA's budget request and the first panel was composed of VA employees led by McDonald.  The others were Dr. Carolyn Clancy, well known fabulist Allison Hickey, Ronald Walters, Stephen Warren and Helen Tierney.


Senator Patty Murray is a long serving member of the Committee and is a former Chair of the Committee.  She and Senator Dean Heller sponsored the Women Veterans Access to Quality Care Act of 2015.


Senator Patty Murray:  Secretary McDonald, as you know and as you said in your opening statement, the population of women veterans is increasing dramatically, it's doubled since 2001. I was really pleased to work with Senator Heller to introduce the Women's Veterans Access to Quality Care Act to make sure that the VA does have the services and the facilities to meet the needs of women veterans.  One of the key positions of that bill is requiring obstetrics and gynecology to be available at every medical center.  I wanted to ask you what resources and staff -- including support staff -- will you need to meet that requirement?

Secretary Robert McDonald: Thank you, Senator Murray.  We've very much in favor of that -- of that approach.  We're in the process of putting, uh, women's clinics all over the country.  We have a new one here in Washington, D.C. and I'd like to invite the members of the Committee to visit it.  Uhm, it's in our Washington, D.C. facility, it's a women's clinic.  Uh, as you know, I've been out to about 12 medical schools, talked to deans.  I'm -- We're hiring.  And we need to hire more gynecologists --

Senator Patty Murray:  Do you -- Do you know how many you would need to --

Secretary Robert McDonald:  Exact number --

Senator Patty Murray (Con't):  -- to do this?

Secretary Robert McDonald:  I don't have an exact number.  I can tell you that in the past -- the past nine months or so, we've hired about 8,000 people.  Of that, about 1,000 are doctors.  But I don't have how many of that are, uh, gynecologists --

Senator Patty Murray:  Okay, if you can get --

Senator Robert McDonald (Con't):  -- with that --

Senator Patty Murray (Con't): -- that for me and get back with me on that.  


And this is what frustrates me regarding the hearings. 

McDonald doesn't have basic information?

He's got a team siting with him at the table and they don't have the information.

Forget not know -- they should know it -- but they're not able to flip through their paperwork in front of them and pull out the figure?

And the team McDonald has sitting behind him at the hearing can't whisper the information to him?

Because, throughout the hearing, the people behind him were feeding him figures and statistics.

When they don't feed on that, when no one at the table volunteers, it doesn't look like people just do not know, it plays like they don't want to share the information.

As Ranking Member Blumenthal and others noted throughout the hearing, Shinseki himself complained, when resigning, that he was not given accurate information from those in the VA reporting to him.

So you'd assume McDonald would be focusing on nailing down information. 

If you're aware that approximately 8,000 people have been hired and 1,000 are doctors, knowing how many are OB-GYNs should not be a mystery. 

Though he didn't supply a number, with 1,000 being doctors.


There are 152 VA medical centers and if we add in VA outpatient clinics, we're left with nearly 1,000 facilities.  (We could also add in the nursing home care units and domiciliaries.)

So there is an issue of a serious lack of gynecologists at VA medical facilities and if only 1,000 doctors were hired, you probably didn't fulfill the needs.

The hearing was February 26th.  The Women Veterans Access to Quality Care Act of 2015 was read and referred to Committee on February 12th.

14 days later, you're not prepared to discuss it?  You don't anticipate discussing it?

Let's go back:

Senator Patty Murray:  One of the key positions of that bill is requiring obstetrics and gynecology to be available at every medical center.  I wanted to ask you what resources and staff -- including support staff -- will you need to meet that requirement?

Secretary Robert McDonald: Thank you, Senator Murray.  We've very much in favor of that -- of that approach.  We're in the process of putting, uh, women's clinics all over the country.  We have a new one here in Washington, D.C. and I'd like to invite the members of the Committee to visit it.  Uhm, it's in our Washington, D.C. facility, it's a women's clinic.  Uh, as you know, I've been out to about 12 medical schools, talked to deans.  I'm -- We're hiring.  And we need to hire more gynecologists --

Senator Patty Murray:  Do you -- Do you know how many you would need to --

Secretary Robert McDonald:  Exact number --

Senator Patty Murray (Con't):  -- to do this?

Secretary Robert McDonald:  I don't have an exact number. 



The VA was present to argue for the budget and what the budget needs are.

The failure to be prepared to address this issue goes to the continued lack of respect for the needs of women veterans.


Senator Patty Murray:  And I also just wanted to bring up the VA's policy, up-to-date -- It is way past time to VA's policies up-to-date with modern medicine and allow the VA to provide better fertility treatment -- including in vitro fertilization for seriously injured veterans who want to start a family.  This is a high priority for me.  I think it is a high priority for our veterans and I want to work with you to get that done so I'll be talking to you more on that.

Senator Robert McDonald:  Working on it.


Senator Patty Murray:  Okay, I want to hear from you.  What are you doing to work on this?


Dr Carolyn Clancy: So my staff briefed me recently on how many women might be eligible and what would be the specific --

Senator Patty Murray:  Well it's women and men. 

Dr. Carolyn Clancy:  -- medical requirements.  Yes.  Uh, also compared what the Dept of Defense covers versus what we cover.  Or, actually, don't.  At the moment.  So, uhm, I sent them back with some more questions.  So we'll be happy to follow up with you.  

Senator Patty Murray:  I'll submit some questions on this but I think this is absolutely critical for our men and women who serve overseas, lose their capability and we have to make sure they can start a family so I will be focused on this.  



Again, the lack of respect for women veterans.

An issue the VA has failed on is referred to, by a medical doctor -- no less, as an issue for women.

Murray corrected her because Murray's worked on this issue repeatedly. She has spoken to many couple's effected by the issue.  She has Chaired hearings on this issue.

She is informed.

And she's done the work to be.

Why hasn't Clancy?

Check her official bio and ask yourself why she is so ignorant of this basic medical issue.

And, please note, this ignorance is after, she maintains, "my staff briefed me on this issue."

And let's note again, as Senator Murray has highlighted for several years now, the Defense Dept provides coverage for this to service members.  It's the VA that's failing to do so.






Posted by at

Friday, March 06, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CLINTON SAYS SCANDAL IS A PLUS!

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

CRANKY CLINTON AND HER E-MAIL SCANDAL REMAIN IN THE NEWS.



ASKED BY THESE REPORTERS IF SHE WAS WORRIED ABOUT FALL OUT FROM THIS HURTING HER POLLING NUMBERS, CRANKY CLINTON REPLIED, "WHY SHOULD IT?  ALL THESE E-MAILS DEMONSTRATE I AM POPULAR AND HAVE MANY FRIENDS!  SO MUCH FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CALLED ME A COLD FISH!"





"The Choice Act has been shocking underutilized," declared Senator Richard Blumenthal at last Thursday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.  Blumenthal is the Ranking Member, Senator Johnny Isakson is the Chair.  The hearing was about the VA's budget request and the first panel was composed of VA employees led by Secretary of the VA Robert McDonald.  The others were Dr. Carolyn Clancy, well known fabulist Allison Hickey, Ronald Walters, Stephen Warren and Helen Tierney.

Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal:  As I outlined earlier, Secretary McDonald, the choice card program basically seems not to be working.  I think you and I, in our conversations, have talked about the potential reasons that it is so underutilized a small fraction of the veterans who  are eligible to use it in practical terms are doing so.  The 40 mile rule may be a cause.


Before we go further, let's all get on the same page.  The House Veterans Affairs Committee offers the following highlights of The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014:
To improve access to and quality of care for veterans, the law:
  • Requires VA to offer an authorization to receive non-VA care to any veteran who is enrolled in the VA health care system as of August 1, 2014, or who is a newly discharged combat veteran if such veteran is unable to secure an appointment at a VA medical facility within 30 days (or a future published goal established by VA) or resides more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical facility, with certain exceptions.
    • Requires VA to provide a Veterans Choice Card to eligible veterans to facilitate care provided by non-VA providers.
    • Provides $10 billion for the newly-established “Veterans Choice Fund” to cover the costs of this increased access to non-VA care. Choice program authority would end when funds are exhausted or three years after enactment, whichever occurs first.
  • Requires an independent assessment of VA medical care and establish a Congressional Commission on Care to evaluate access to care throughout the VA health care system.
  • Extends the ARCH (Access Received Closer to Home) pilot program for two years.
  • Extends for three years a pilot program to provide rehabilitation, quality of life, and community integration services to veterans with complex-mild to severe traumatic brain injury.
  • Improves the delivery of care to veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma as well as care for Native Hawaiian and Native American veterans.

To expand VA’s internal capacity to provide timely care to veterans, the bill would:
  • Provides $5 billion to VA to increase access to care through the hiring of physicians and other medical staff and by improving VA’s physical infrastructure.
  • Authorizes 27 major medical facility leases in 18 states and Puerto Rico.

To provide real accountability for incompetent or corrupt senior managers, the law:
  • Authorizes VA to fire or demote Senior Executive Service (SES) employees and Title 38 SES equivalent employees for poor performance or misconduct.
    • Provides an expedited and limited appeal process for employees disciplined under this authority. Appeals would go to a Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge, who would have 21 days to decide on the appeal. If a decision is not reached within that 21-day period, then VA’s decision to remove or demote the executive is final.
    • Prohibits SES employees from receiving pay, bonuses and benefits during the appeal process.
  • Reduces funding for bonuses available to VA employees by $40 million each year through FY 2024.

To improve education benefits for veterans and dependents, the law:
  • Requires public colleges to provide in-state tuition to veterans and eligible dependents in order for the school to remain eligible to receive G.I. Bill education payments.
  • Expands the Sgt. Fry Scholarship Program to provide full Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to spouses of servicemembers who died in the line of duty after 9/11.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would result in net spending of roughly $10 billion from 2014 - 2024, making it less expensive than previous VA reform packages passed by the House and Senate.

Downloads



Along with backlog claims issues, the VA has suffered from the scandal of not delivering timely care and inventing a system not to fix that but to hide it.  The simplest explanation is that the VA kept two sets of books on appointments -- the false one had veterans receiving timely care when they called in to schedule appointments, the reality version -- which was hidden from Congress --documented the lengthy wait times.

As a result of veterans being denied timely care -- and the health problems and, yes, deaths that resulted from these actions led to the passage of the 2014 act.

It was hoped that this measure allowing veterans living "more than 40 miles from the nearest VA medical facility" to utilize a non-VA facility and doctor would allow for more timely health care.


To be clear, veterans can utilize that and could before the bill -- minus the 40 miles clause.  But to do so they had to get a written referral from a VA doctor and present that at whatever appointment/consultation with a non-VA doctor.  This clause in the act was supposed to simplify this process.

But that did not happen.

Today, Tom Philpott (Stars and Stripes) noted Senate VA Committee Chair Johnny Isakson is calling for the 40-mile aspect to be loosened:

  As we reported here several times last year, the law is more restrictive than early Capitol Hill tweets had indicated.  For each episode of care, regional VA healthcare managers still must authorize outside care, and VA usually will direct patients into a contracted network of health care providers.
Meanwhile, the 40-mile rule narrows eligibility to use cards in two ways.  First, the law uses “geodesic” or as-the-crow-flies distance to determine if a veteran lives more than 40 miles from VA care.  This denies access to private sector care to many vets who reside within 40 miles of VA care if one uses a map and ruler.  Actual drives for care can be much longer.
Second, the 40-mile rule applies to the nearest VA health facility, not nearest VA facility providing needed care. So veterans who reside within 40 miles of a VA clinic that can’t treat their conditions still aren’t eligible to use the Choice Card.  Those are two problems that need fixing, Isakson said.
“We need to make sure that if [VA] health care within 40 miles of the veteran doesn’t provide chemotherapy or doesn’t provide a heart transplant or doesn’t provide a specialty the veteran needs, they get to exercise the 40-mile rule because the health care they need is not available,” said Isakson.

“We also need to be certain we look at how long it takes to drive there…This straight-line application is crazy,” Isakson said.  “It needs to be the time [or mileage] from leaving the garage of the veteran to pulling into the parking lot of the Veterans Administration.”


I understand why the act was passed, I understand the reasoning behind it -- and I actually support that.  But I'm confused to this day of why the lawmakers seem unaware of what was already available.

Veterans had to jump through hoops -- whether they were VA, TRICARE or CHAMPVA to get those referrals unless their VA primary care doctor was a good one.  (A sign of a good one?  They retroactively authorize it if you're on vacation and have to see a non-VA doctor out of your area.  Which they can do but only very few will.)  (If your visit is not authorized -- prior to the appointment or retroactively -- you are responsible for the cost of the visit, your veterans plan is not covering it.)

It appears the hope was that by the wording of the 40 miles, it would be easier for the veterans to receive the referral for care.  I think it was stupid to rely on the same system that was already a problem -- VA doctors -- to give the same referrals. 

I'm glad Isakson wants to reform it and I agree with his comments but more needs to be done.  The easiest thing would be to have some sort of clearance that took place online and by phone (because everyone doesn't have a computer -- shocking though that is to America's so-called 'creative class').  So a veteran would log on or dial in and enter their address -- already on file with the VA -- and request a referral for a visit to a non-VA facility.  The computer or phone system would know that the address was X number of miles from the nearest VA and if was 40 or more a referral would automatically be sent out to the veteran.

The thinking seems to have been that by putting it into law the VA doctors would be less hesitant about providing the referrals.  But the problem was more the issue of accessing the doctors and getting the referral -- the time involved for both -- and this was time while you were waiting for treatment.  The system should have been automated.

If the doctors are part of the reason for the delay -- and they are and that's chiefly because of the time involved -- then the solution was to automate the process.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


Posted by at

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THEY REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE! MOST LIKELY!

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



THE POINT OF THE MEET UP?

TO PROVE THAT ALTHOUGH THEY GOVERN IDENTICALLY, THEY REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.





February 19th, "CENTCOM whispers about an upcoming assault on Mosul which may involve US troops."  That's when an official with CENTCOM spoke on 'background' with the US press about the then-planned upcoming attack on Mosul which has been held by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL) since June.  As we noted then:


This was not a private conversation.
It was a background briefing. 
Here's how that works, the Pentagon is the john insisting on his fantasies being played out and the press are the whores working to make the fantasy come true.


While we emphasized the aspect that US troops would be utilized -- despite US President Barack Obama insisting last June that US troops would not be sent back into Iraq to be ground troops in combat -- most went with the official declaring the assault would begin in March, April or May . . .

This has resulted in a large amount of criticisms.

Strangely, Barack hasn't been asked about it.

Strangely, he's not offered an opinion.

For once in his time as President, Mr. Know It All hasn't had an opinion to share -- this from the man who's weighed in on everything from reality TV to Kanye West.

At today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the background briefing to the press was raised and the new Secretary of Defense Ash Carter labeled the briefing an error and a mistake.


Senator Tom Cotton: I have to go back to something that we were discussing a few series ago about the leak of our plans to Mosul.  I believe, Secretary Carter, you said you were looking into it.  I know General Dempsey that you said you were looking into it.  I-I-I don't understand what would take so long to get to the bottom of. I mean, this was not a leak.  I mean it was a planned conference call with members of the media, if I understand the reporting correctly.  Do I misunderstand something here?

Secretary Ash Carter: No, that's my understanding as well.  And I just say two things about this whole incident.  The first is, Senator, that when a-a-a operation is mounted against Mosul or anywhere else, uh, it needs to be a success and it needs to be Iraqi-led and supported by us and it needs to be successful.  And that -- It's a little bit like the conditions-based point that Senator --

Senator Tom Cotton:  Mr. Secretary, I agree fully.  I agree fully.  I don't -- I don't understand why announcing any timeline would have contributed to any idea it would have been a success nor do I understand why it would take so long to understand why an organized conference call with the media was held. 

Secretary Ash Carter: I'll say something about that and let the Chairman who's also spoken about that to General [Lloyd] Austin [CENTCOM Commander] about that.  That clearly was not neither accurate information nor had it been accurate would it have been information that should be blurted out to the press.  So it's wrong on both fronts -- on both scores.  And the only thing I'll say is that we try as aaaaaaaaaaaa [he stretched "a" out and we're noting it that way to capture it correctly] -- as the Department of Defense  of  a democracy to be as open as we can.  So there are lots of people out there talking all the time about what we're doing and every once in a while somebody gets out in front of their skis but I also even as we make sure that this particular incident doesn't happen again, uhm, I-I-I think that it's important that we be open as a Department -- not with military secrets and not with war plans -- which is the mistake made in this case -- but we do try to keep the country informed about what we're doing. It's about protecting them, it is a democracy, and so openess is important but it has to have limits when it comes to security matters and those limits obviously weren't respected in this case.


Robert Burns (AP) observes, "The episode is remarkable in at least two respects. It was unusual for the U.S. military to disclose in advance the expected timing of an offensive as well as details about the makeup of the Iraqi force that would undertake it. And it was curious that a secretary of defense would wait nearly two weeks after such a briefing to denounce it publicly for having spilled military secrets."


If the briefing was wrong, maybe it's equally wrong to inaccurately portray Carter's remarks.  This outlet did just that.  Above is what was said.

If you're going to put words in between quotation marks, you need to make sure they're accurate.  And while mishearing a word or two is always possible for anyone, recreating and restructuring public remarks is not reporting.


With the Secretary of Defense now calling out the briefing, it's probably past time that the White House was asked for a formal comment.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq"
  •  


    • Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)