Cedric's Big Mix: 2011-06-12

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Another White House conspiracy!

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

IN THE TOPSY TURVY WORLD OF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, NOTHING IS EVER SIMPLE.

THIS WAS PROVEN FRIDAY WHEN WHITE HOUSE TOWEL BOY DAN PFEIFFER FLOATED THE LATEST CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT AMERICA'S PRINCESS. IN 1996, BARRY O SIGNED A PLEDGE PROMISING TO "FAVOR LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES, AND WOULD FIGHT EFFORTS TO PROHIBIT SUCH MARRIAGES."

APPARENTLY TOO MUCH CHLORINE IN THE EARS AND UP THE CRACK LED DANNY BOY TO INSIST THAT BARRY O NEVER SIGNED THAT PLEDGE. IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE -- DANNY BOY INSISTED LOOKING AS THOUGH HE HAD JUST TAKEN A WHIZZ IN THE POOL.

THOUGH SOME AGREE WITH DANNY BOY THAT BARRY O NEVER SIGNED IT, AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH OF THE HONOLULU STAR-ADVERTISER ARCHIVES HAS TURNED UP A FULL PAGE AD WHICH RALPH AND MADELYN DUNHAM TOOK OUT IN OCTOBER 12, 1996 TO PRAISE "OUR GRANDSON FOR HIS SUPPORT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, THE FORTHCOMING PUPPY EPISODE TO BE BROADCAST IN APRIL OF NEXT YEAR. WAY TO ELLEN!!!!! ALSO OUR GRANDSON BARRY WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA. WE REPEAT NOT BORN IN KENYA. WE HAVE A FEELING THIS MAY BE A PROBLEM IN THE NEAR FUTURE. CALL IT A HUNCH. AND BARRY, WE CONGRATULATE YOU ON 2008 WHEN YOU BECOME A PRESIDENT. AND, AS 2012 DRAWS TO A CLOSE, REMEMBER ONE TERM IS REALLY NOT ALL THAT BAD. YOU STILL GET THE PENSION. AND THE HEALTH INSURANCE. AND THE SECRET SERVICE TO PROTECT YOU. IF YOU'D GOTTEN A SECOND TERM IT WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING. AND TO AMERICA WE SAY, WE TRIED TO INSTILL SOME VALUES BUT, HEY, OUR DAUGHTER HOOKED UP WITH A LOSER, A LYING PIECE OF CRAP WHO SEDUCED HER AND GOT HER PREGNANT AND HE WAS ALREADY MARRIED. WE WORKED WITH WHAT WE COULD SO DON'T BLAME US."

DESPITE THE DOCUMENTED PROOF, SOME 'PLEDGERS' REFUSE TO BELIEVE BARRY O DIDN'T SIGN THE PLEDGE AND SOME INSIST HIS GRANDPARENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE PSYCHICS OR ELSE THE AD WAS FAKED AFTER THE FACT. MSNBC LAWRENCE O'DONNELL SWEARS HE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT ALL OR THE BOTTOM OF SOMETHING.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Daniel Hanson: So I joined the Marine Corps in 2003. Shortly after I was deployed to Ramadi Iraq in 2004. And it was a deployment that started with one of our Marines shooting himself in the head -- just kind of brushed that under the table. And then 34 marines we lost -- throughout the deployment. We had about 400, 450 Marines injured. Came back and, uh, went on leave and that was -- that was that. Started drinking pretty heavy, dealing with nightmares, dealing with things I wasn't really prepared to deal with, I would say. And I think one of the biggest reasons that I dealt with it myself was just because -- I mean, I was in a battalion with a thousand Marines, I don't think people wanted to hear, you know, my whining and complaining. So -- Then shortly after we went on antoher deployment, non-combat which, uhm, uh, just kept on drinking, kept masking my issues with whatever -- whatever would take away any of the pain. Came back and then about six months later my unit was deployed again to Iraq. This time I was in the remain-behind-element so I was kind of able to see the other side of things -- when we would get the casualty reports, we would get the KIAs in and have to notifiy and take beyond that end of things as well. I decided that I was going to get out of the Marine Corps and uh -- But I was persuaded by a good friend, Sgt Major JJ Ellis, to stay in but, on that deployment, he ended up getting killed. I went to his funeral over in Arlington National Cemetery. Then after that, a friend, also in 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, Jonathan Schulze, hanged himself in the basement of his home and that kind of got me twirling out of control just before I was going to get out of the Marine Corps. And then finally on March -- I got discharged in February, 2007. And then on March 23, 2007, my brother -- who is also in the Marine Corps -- he hung himself in the basement of his home. And at that point, I think I decided I was going to do everything I could to avoid pain, that I was going to do everything to deal with it myself as I had been doing for the last three or four years. And I got into drugs, I got into alcohol. I got into whatever it was that would mask the pain that day. Eventually, I tried to kill myself. I ended up in the St. Cloud VA Medical Center for about 48 hours in lock-up. And then I was released and off to do whatever it is that I wanted to do -- which was go back to work because that seemed like the normal thing to do after -- after something like that. And eventually I found myself in and out of jail. I'm not -- And I was getting treated on an outpatient basis for awhile at the VA Medical Center. But when you were as messed up as I was, it takes a lot more than, you know, one or two sessions a week to get through my issues. And so I eventually found my way into the dual diagnosis program to get help. It was mostly to avoid a longer stint in jail for my DUIs. Eventually, I got out after about 30 days. I think I started drinking the next day. About a year later I found myself in jail for, I don't know, the sixth or seventh time and I decided for myself that I was done hurting myself, I was done hurting my family, I was done hurting my children. And I checked into a 13 to 15 month faith-based program that was what changed my life. About a week after jail, I stopped going to work, stopped going to school and I decided that I wasn't going to be very productive unless I got help. And that's what I did at Minneapolis Teen Challenge. It was more of a holistic approach. It was -- I went to the VA once a week to get help in the combat and the military specific issues and then I would stay there, you know, seven days a week. I wasn't able to get any funding through the VA because it was not -- it was not a VA funded program. Therefore, I got backed up on bills, I wasn't able to pay things and eventually filed bankruptcy. So in my dealing with the VA Medical Center, I always felt like I was in control, I was running my own rehabilitation althought I couldn't even, you know, put my shoes and socks on correctly most days. I felt like it was "Whatever I wanted to do Mr. Hanson, whatever I wanted to do that I thought was best for me. Well I thought what was best for me to go and get drunk and get high and forget about all my troubles and forget about all my nightmares.

Iraq War veteran Daniel Hanson was testifying Tuesday to the House Veterans Affairs Committee in their hearing on mental health. A few notes about the above. This is the hearing that I was hoping to get room for all week. (Not the hearing that has a transcript, I wasn't interested in that hearing.) A veteran who also attended the hearing asked me if I wasn't covering it because of Daniel Hanson's attitude towards treatment? The only reason I hadn't covered it was we didn't have room.

But his treatment probably is as important as anything else in the hearing in many ways, so let's discuss that. What works for me is not going to work for you unless we're very similar. People are very different. There is no cookie cutter treatment to help someone towards recovery. For Dan Hanson, a faith-based program worked. That's most likely because he's living a faith-based life. If someone is liviing that sort of life and he or she has a very strong faith, that faith needs to be part of the therapy. It needs to be brought into it. What the VA couldn't provide him with for whatever reasons, he kept searching until it came to him. And good for him for that.

The thing that bothers me the most about his testimony -- and I thought he was very brave to have shared all he did -- is that he's talking about feeling like all the choices were up to him. In the civilian world there might be a likelihood of treatments -- at the start -- being like that. But not all are. And I'm especially surprised that one would be geared towards veterans like that. To use Dan Hanson's life as an example, he was in a lot of pain and he was spiraling out of control. He correctly identifies himself as not having the skills at that point to go beyond what was probably labeled "stinking thinking" in his treatment (the "stinking thinking" that led him into the situation). Especially for veterans, that seems misguided. Just listening to his story, Dan Hanson was managing -- maybe not coping -- and had to grab additional resources (alcohol, drugs) to continue to manage each day. This was in the military. His use of alcohol most likely increased out of the military because there are certain structures within the daily life of the military that would make it much more difficult for him to show up for duty drunk off his as.

And the military structure is something that's instilled in training. The point being, if you're a veteran and you're seeking treatment for some behaviours that are harmful and out of control, you need structure. You need to see that you are part of your treatment and you need to see that you can work your treatment or program. But before you can go anywhere, a sesne of structure has to be imposed upon you by the program.

That's what Dan Hanson did not get from the VA and what he's talking about when he refers to feeling like the VA attitude was: Do what you want, you know best. If you talk to Elaine generically about this sort of topic (she keeps patient confidentiality and never discusses specifics), she would tell you that your life needs some structure and she'd work with you to construct that (with the earliest stages of your treatment being the most highly stuctured). So I'm confused as to how anyone at the VA thought that sort of 'treatment' would help. His life was chaos and felt chaos on the inside which is why he was using alcohol and other drugs to mask what was going on inside. It disturbs me that something so obvious as missed and if was missed with one person, then it's been missed with many. Dan Hanson was very brave to share his story. And his story isn't just a story of 'this didn't work for me but that did.' It's also a story of VA not grasping emotional distress.

He used Minneapolis Teen Challenge. Many of today's veterans are very young but they may not realize that 'teen' addiction treatment centers can often treat them as well because they are actually teen and young adult. Most go up to at least the age of 24 when accepting clients. Of live-in treatment programs, those tend to provide more structure than those geared solely for adults. So that is something that is a resource to any veteran who's 24 or under and relates to Dan Hanson's journey.

The House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair is Jeff Miller and the Ranking Member is Bob Filner. Bob Filner noted that the Committee he had repeatedly lodged complaints about the backlog and he did do that. And it's also true that he and others offered the VA their ear, asked the VA repeatedly, "What do you need?" Time and again, the Committee was told they needed nothing from Congress. I can remember many Subcommittee hearings where Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin would be the Chair and she would specifically ask about the backlog. And she would be told that they didn't need additional employees and that, in fact, additional employees would slow them down because they'd have to pull people away from working claims to train the new employees. So the backlog isn't a minor issue, it's not one that Congress has ignored, it's one that the VA has repeatedly stated was fixed or about to be fixed, etc. And it's not been fixed.

This came up during the hearing on Tuesday when the VA's Dr. Karen Seal spoke of the hiring freeze at her VA when Ranking Member Bob Filner brought up the issue of veterans unemployment and wondered why the VA wasn't hiring veterans for duties such as outreach and interaction.

Ranking Member Bob Filner: I don't mean to interrupt you. Mr. Chairman, I've heard this in several places. There's a hiring freeze. I mean, we have the biggest problem we've ever had. We've given the VA more money than they've ever had. And we keep hearing about hiring freeze. What is going on here? I mean, we're under-resourced you [Dr. Seal] say. I mean, we have increased the VA budget every year for as long as we've been here and it's 60, 70% higher than it was just five years ago. What is going on?

Phil Roe is a House Veterans Affairs Committee Member and he's also a medical doctor. He wanted to explore the faith-based aspect And this probably was the unique part of the hearing because that topic hasn't been discussed at prior hearings I've attended. So let's emphasize Roe and Hanson's exchange.

US House Rep Phil Roe: I want to hear a little bit more about your faith-based, how the program you felt was successful for you. I think that's really important because obviously everybody's different but this clearly worked with you and I think you'd made your mind up too that you were going to change your life. I think it had a lot to do with you also.

Daniel Hanson: Yes, sir. I mean I was at the point where it was either -- I mean, I was on my knees in my jail cell praying. I said, "God, either use me or kill me." And I eventually went to Teen Challenge and the reason I feel that was so effective was it was more of a holistic -- I mean, I was such an immoral -- I used to say "social parasite" -- where, you know, I was a liar, I was an alcoholic, I was a dead beat dad essentially. And when I went into Minnesota Teen Challenge, I was able to deal with ,the moral and not just the things that happened in combat but going all the way back to childhood and some of those issues and get to the heart. And for 13 to 15 months, you know, you're going to get through a lot of the issues. I still have issues, but they are considerably less. I mean, it was physical healing, emotional healing, spiritual healing. It was, you know, mental healing. And it was, like I said, more of a holistic approach of getting help for not just what happened when I was in the Marine Corps but before and after, and the damage I had done, the survivor's guilt. And knowing that what happened happened but I have a future and I have the chance to make the best out of it. And that's what I intend on doing now.

US House Rep Phil Roe: And you've obviously done a great job with that and a real asset not only as a soldier and a Marine but as just a citizen of the country and as a father . And again to the Chairman and Mr. Filner's question, how do you think the VA could use some of the experiences you've had to make it better for other Marines or soldiers or Airmen who have experienced the same thing?

Daniel Hanson: Well I definitely feel that at times, if I would have got the kick in the butt I needed to get into rehab -- where if the VA would have said, "Lookit, either you go to rehab, you get better or, you know, you're not welcome here. Basically, if you don't want to use what we have set up for us then maybe you should use somewhere else. Because if there's people that really want to get help, this place needs to be open for those individuals." And for years, I had great opportunities to get help but I didn't because I didn't want to. And I think that if the VA, you know, instead of a friendship role, took that parent role when I know there's plenty of times my dad made choices where I hated him for it at the beginning but I saw the absolute necessity of it years down the road. I appreciated him much more for it obviously instead of him not parenting me. And it's a wierd analogy to use -- the VA as a parent -- but I just think if the VA would be possibly more assertive in their treatment and saying, "Lookit, you're obviously messed up, you've been through this, you've been through this, you have this police record. It's time to either get help or, you know, find somewhere else to try to get help."

US House Rep Michael Michaud and Daniel Hanson spoke about the need to have knowledge of a variety of programs before you discharge from the military and become a veteran. He spoke about how when he was active duty, it would have been helpful to know about different ways to get help and "to know it wasn't 'weird' or 'weak'" to get help. Michaud noted that on trips to Iraq, he asks what's needed to help with issues like TBI and PTSD and traumas and the brass tells him they have all they need. But a lower ranking official pulled him aside and suggested he speak to the clergy about the issue. He noted he now does that on every visit to Iraq, "And they [the clergy] were telling me that more and more of the soldiers were going to them because they were afraid to seek help from a doctor because they were afraid of what other soldiers would say."

Friday, June 17, 2011

We regret our error

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

IN A CORRECTION TO YESTERDAY'S REPORT (SEE "THIS JUST IN! JOBS FOR SALE!" AND "The White House provides jobs"), THESE REPORTERS NOTE THAT THIS PASSAGE WAS NOT QUITE TRUE: "FOR $6,000 YOU WILL NOT BE HIRED TO FOLLOW BARRY O AROUND AND FLUSH THE TOILET FOR HIM WHEN HE LEAVES A BATHROOM. THAT JOB DOES IT EXIST BUT RIGHT NOW JAY CARNEY HOLDS THE POSITION."

THESE REPORTERS WERE CONTACTED BY INCREASINGLY EMBARRASSING JAY CARNEY WHO EXPLAINED HE DOES NOT WAIT OUTSIDE THE BATHROOM DOOR WAITING FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TO DO HIS BUSINESS AND THEN RUSH IN TO FLUSH THE TOILET FOR AMERICA'S PRINCESS.

NO, CARNEY EXPLAINS HE RUSHES IN AND "I EITHER DRINK OR EAT. BUT I DO ONE OR THE OTHER BECAUSE WE ARE A GREEN WHITE HOUSE AND WE DO NOT WASTE WATER WITH UNNECESSARY FLUSHES."

THESE REPORTERS GREATLY REGRET OUR MISREPORTING YESTERDAY AND THANK CARNEY FOR CLARIFYING HIS JOB ON THE RECORD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today Aaron Smith (CNNMoney) reports the International Energy Agency has issued a new report which finds that demand for oil will be more than the supply available. The report is entitled "Medium-Team Oil and Gas Markets 2011" and IEA's Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka says, "This report shows that oil's twilgiht as an industrial fuel continues, and it becomes ever more concentrated in the transport and petrochemical sectors. Gas on the other hand continues to increase in power generation as well as industry and space heating. In terms of market structure and pricing, oil is a genuinely global commodity, while gas markets, although globalising, remain bound by some key regional constrations, not least in terms of transportation." The report notes, "Growth in oil supply capacity through 2016 averages 1.1 mb/d [million barrels a day] annually, as higher prices unlock new supplies. Iraq, UAE and Angola lead growth prospects from OPEC, while Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan and Columbia drive non-OPEC increases." This evening, Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reveals that although US companies didn't do so well in those public options, they will enrich their own coffers, "In fact, American drilling companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars from the new petroleum activity in Iraq long before any of the oil producers start seeing any returns on their investments." Yesterday afternoon, Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered the army to boost protection of the country's pipelines and refineries from sabotage." Nouri first became prime minister in 2006 and throughout his first term and his just begun second term he's never shown much interest in or desire to protect the Iraqi people but he'll make sure the oil is safe. For example, Al Rafidayn reports today on some Iraqis who fled their homes during the ethnic cleansing of 2006 and 2007 and relocated elsewhere in Iraq and they continue to live in fear, some "in houses built out of stones and reeds" and Jassim Jubayr Ugaili states he does not want to go back into Baghdad because he was threatened and three of his brothers and one of his nephews were killed. His 18-year-old son Mohammad adds that it would not make any difference for the family to move back because they would just be one or two returning since most families will not return due to the continued violence.

Then again, maybe being spared Nouri's efforts at protection is actually a blessing for the Iraqi people. No, we're not implying Nouri is the "huge snake" Dar Addustour reports hid under rubble and allegedly ate two children and four cats in a Nasiriyah neighborhood. We're referring to Roy Gutman and Laith Hammoudi's (McClatchy Newspapers) report that Nouri al-Maliki declared on "live television broadcast late Tuesday" that assassinations on government security officials were being carried out by a "militia" which has infiltrated the ministries -- he names Interior and Defense specifically.

Gutman and Hammoudi have a strong article that's sketches out what happened. Let's explore why. Human Rights Watch, more than any other organization, is getting under Nouri's thin skin. And primarily because they observe the reality of what an assailant was wearing -- often official security uniforms (such as a police uniform). In 2008, the press was very good about identifying what assailants were wearing when they were in official clothing. And then some of that got dropped. HRW continues to note it and it's becoming harder and harder for Nouri to fall back on his 2006 excuses of 'they're fake uniforms!' and 'a warehouse in southern Iraq housing uniforms was broken into!'

Going public with the fact that a lot of these officially garbed assailants are working for the government, Nouri gets to be seen as more honest and, he hopes, gets to inject a falsehood into the narrative the press will then repeat.

The narrative? Nouri declared on "live TV" that this infiltration has taken place and: "Those who have destroyed the Ministries of the Interior and Defense are we, the (political) parties, who come with a list and tell the officials, 'Employ these people'."

That little statement's not innocuous or an aside. It's Nouri's main point. And part of his efforts to convince the Iraqi people that not only is he the only thing keeping them 'safe' but that he needs more power and the ability to rework the current government.

The only real flaw in Gutman and Hammoudi's article is that they repeat Nouri's assertion and fail to provide perspective. The two reporters go on to say that some feel the tensions between Nouri and Ayad Allawi are harming the country but that's not the main issue. Here's the point they should have made, one that would have made their article much stronger: 'Today Nouri al-Maliki accused other political parties of destroying the Ministries of Interior and Defense by demanding that their people staff the agencies; however, if the two ministries are in disarray that blame would be shared by Nouri who refused to appoint a Minister to head either of those ministries and has instead declared himself the temporary head of those two ministries as well as the Ministry of National Security.'

Those are the facts. If the two ministries have been infiltrated, then that goes to the
fact that they have no permanent head. If the two ministries are in trouble or struggling, that goes to Nouri who's decided he can be prime minister and head three ministries. Of Nouri's lousy job performance, Francis Matthew (Gulf News) offers:

He promised that officials at any level would be sacked if their performance did not match standards, and he spelt out that "the performance of the government and the ministries will be evaluated separately in order to know the extent of success or failure in carrying out the duties given to them". He also made it clear that each minister would have to be responsible for stopping corruption in their ministries.
Despite the drama of his announcement, nothing happened. This week, at the end of his 100-day deadline, Al Maliki met his cabinet (no one had been sacked). He later claimed to the public that each ministry now has a four-year plan, and he seems to be insisting that he has achieved all his goals, and he claims "massive progress" in the 100 days.
It seems unlikely that all Iraq's ministries have just become models of efficiency, and that its famously corrupt officials have all stopped taking bribes. The opposition does not agree with Al Maliki's rosy view of what has happened, and its leaders have called for renewed protests to start this weekend.
It remains to be seen if they can get the people back onto the streets, and also if Al Maliki's large and very tough security forces will let them march again. The events this weekend will indicate how political life in Iraq might run for the next few months.

Nouri took 100 Days, he reset the clock and he accomplished nothing. Repeatedly. Of course, he had help in his incompetence. The 100 Days was a device which attempted to derail the protest movement in Iraq. Aiding him at that time was Moqtada al-Sadr who occasionally breezes through Iraq but prefers to reside in Iran. He fled Iraq when he feared Nouri would use the arrest warrant to put al-Sadr behind bars (the arrest warrant is for murder -- that's a warrant, not a conviction and even were it a conviction we don't mistake Iraqi 'justice' in the puppet, US-imposed system for actual justice). He did a few pop-over visits recently and, as a result, his influence has waned. His big 'protest' in May? We focused on the absurdity of calling observers participants -- he had his militia march through Sadr City and he and many in the press counted as 'participants' people who stepped out of their homes to watch the march go by. But equally ridiculous was the fact that the 100,000 present in Baghdad number was coming from . . . a telephone interview . . . with a Sadr loyalist not in Baghdad but in Najaf -- in Najaf, where he could survey all in Baghdad with the naked eye, apparently. But the most ridiculous thing about that 'protest' was the efforts to make it appear Moqtada was present. Oh! Look! It's his car! Everybody run to it! Oh! Look! It's pulling away!!! Oh, Moqtada . . . No, he wasn't present. (The same Najaf spokesperson insisted to the press that Moqtada was present but his followers were just too enthusiastic to allow Moqtada to safely exit his car. Yeah, right.) If you missed any of that crazy, read Mohamad Ali's report for AFP, they were the most grounded of the outlets reporting on the 'protest.' As we've long noted, US intelligence and that of England's, France's and two countries neighboring Iraq's all say Moqtada's influence has waned. Today Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) speaks to Mehdi militia members and finds that's the case. What if Moqtada declares war -- as he says he will if the US military stays beyond 2011? One member explains that he's focused on college and becoming an attorney, he needs three years without "any trouble" and he's got the life he wants. Oops, Moqtada can't count on that one. Abu Sadiq (whom al-Salhy describes as a "senior Mehdi Army leader in Sadr City") maintains, "Despite his huge number of supporters, if Moqtada decided to fight now, only a few would fight. The only ones who will fight are those who have not become contractors, or parliament members or gained salaries, cars, homes or government posts." And what about the assertion we've repeatedly noted, that there's real competition among those still dedicated to the cause and they aren't likely to see the Iran-bound Moqtada as 'representative' of their needs and interests? Abu Moqtada ("former Mehdi fighter") tells al-Salhy, "The danger that Moqtada faces is from his leaders who are competing with each other for wealth and positions." al-Salhy adds, "The biggest splinter group, Asaib al-Haq, is already challenging Sadr, eroding his militia from within by infiltrating the top echelons of his organization, Sadrist sources say." (To be clear, this is not, "I was right!!!!" I am not intelligence for any country -- and there are those who know me who would never connect my name and intelligence or intelligent together in the same sentence. But we did note what people were saying -- especially from diplomatic circles -- that their countries' intelligence was saying regarding Moqtada's influence. And if I'm hearing it -- from several sets of people -- I really didn't understand why the press wasn't aware of it even if they weren't reporting on it. And in fairness to reporters in Iraq, any such reports would more likely have been expected to come from reporters in DC or in the capitals of other countries.)

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The White House provides jobs

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

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WORK, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS HERE TO HELP.

NO, AMERICA'S PRINCESS IS NOT IMPROVING THE ECONOMY. BUT HE HAS PROVIDED A LIST -- A PRICING LIST -- OF SORTS.

SO IF YOU LOST YOUR JOB AND NOW STRUGGLE TO MAKE ENDS MEET, THE GOOD NEWS IS IF YOU WILL CONTRIBUTE AND OR RAISE $500,000 FOR THE PRINCESS' 2012 CAMPAIGN, HE WILL HIRE YOU TO HIRE OTHER PEOPLE. DON'T WORRY ABOUT CAMPAIGN LIMITS BECAUSE, AS DEMONSTRATED REPEATEDLY IN 2008, BARRY O DON'T TRACK NO DOUGH EXCEPT THE NUMBERS!

IF $500,000 SEEMS TO STEEP FOR YOU, THESE REPORTERS HAVE GOOD NEWS. IF YOU ARE A MYTHICAL SMALL DONOR, CONGRATULATIONS. MOST OF YOU WERE THE FIRST TO BE DESTROYED BY THE ECONOMY SO IT'S GOOD TO KNOW YOU ARE STILL AROUND. BUT IF YOU CAN REPEAT YOUR 2008 PERFORMANCE AND RAISE AT LEAST $1700 THIS YEAR, BARRY O WILL HIRE YOU TO FOLLOW BO AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE, PICKING UP THE LITTLE 'TREATS' BO LEAVES BEHIND.

IF YOU CAN MANAGE TO SCRAPE TOGETHER $2,500, YOU WILL BE HIRED TO DO ALL THE GARDENING THAT SHE-HULK MICHELLE WILL THEN TAKE CREDIT FOR.

FOR$4000, YOU WILL BE HIRED TO CUT THE SLEEVES OFF ALL SHE-HULK'S NEWLY PURCHASED BLOUSES AND DRESSED.

FOR $6,000 YOU WILL NOT BE HIRED TO FOLLOW BARRY O AROUND AND FLUSH THE TOILET FOR HIM WHEN HE LEAVES A BATHROOM. THAT JOB DOES IT EXIST BUT RIGHT NOW JAY CARNEY HOLDS THE POSITION.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last week, 6 US soldiers died in Iraq, this week 2 have died. One of the six from last week was Spc Robert Hartwick. WBNS (link has text and video) reports, "Hundreds of people lined the streets on Wednesday to honor a Hocking County soldier killed in Iraq. [. . .] As his body was returned home on Wednesday, residents turned out to pay their respects during a procession that included hundreds of motorcyclists, police officers and firefighters." NBC4's Donna Willis and AP note, "The combat medic's body came home Wednesday, and the community lined the streets of downtown Logan to pay their respects." ABC6 reports, "Hartwick grew up in Hocking County where he attended church at the Gibisonville Mt Olive United Methodist Church. Pastor John Williams told ABC6/Fox28 News' Chris Koeberl Thursday that he remembered Hartwick as a quiet boy who loved the outdoors. The quiet boy returned home to men, women and children standing side-by-side Wednesday, paying their respects to his duty and sacrifice." His funeral is Saturday at the Logan Church of the Nazarene, eleven in the morning.

Another of the six US soldiers killed in Iraq last week was Pfc Michael Olivieri. Thursday is the Homer Glen native's funeral (Homer Glen is a suburb of Chicago). The service will take place at Modell Funeral Homes which carries this obituary at their website:

PFC. Michael C. "Mikey" Olivieri U.S. Army 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, KS, passed away as a result of insurgent fire in Iraq on June 6, 2011. Cherished husband of Sharon Olivieri. Loving son of Michael A. and Jody Olivieri. Devoted brother of Abby (fiance Adam Brook), Ashley and Joe. Dearest grandson of Joseph J. and Adelaide Olivieri, Dorothy and the late Rolland Riegel. Son-in-law of Nyman and Theresa Beckman. Visitation Wed. 2 p.m. until time of evening service 7:30 p.m. at Modell Funeral Home, 12641 W. 143rd St., Homer Glen, where funeral services will be held on Thursday June 16th at 10 a.m. Interment Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations to the Homer Township Public Library in Michael's name to support a silent reading room appreciated. Michael enjoyed music, playing and singing in the band called the Moops. He was an avid Cubs and Bears fan. His sense of humor could bring laughter to all. 708-301-3595 or www.modellfh.com.

The Chicago Sun-Times notes, "Visitation will be from 2 to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at Modell Funeral Home, 12641 W. 143rd St. Funeral services will be held there at 10 a.m. Thursday. Interment will be at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery." And Michelle Mulins (Southtown Star) reports, "The Homer Glen Village Board on Tuesday night urged residents to turn out in large numbers and wave flags Thursday during the funeral procession for Army Pfc. Michael Olivieri, a resident who was killed last week in Iraq."

Today US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Mike Mullen appeared before Congress. Both are outgoing. Mullen intends to leave this fall and Gates hopes to leave shortly President Barack Obama has nominated Leon Panetta for Gates' post. The confirmation hearing was last week, see "Iraq snapshot," "Brown and Collins ask Panetta," "Claire McCaskill" and "Senate Armed Service Committee Boneheads." This morning Gates told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that he was making his final testimony before a Congressional committee adding, "And this time I mean it." Possibly in reference to his back and forth, in and out of appointed government positions? Or he might have been referring to the The Robert Gates Farewell Tour which has found him repeatedly declaring that he was making his last Congressional testimony . . . only to do so again and again and again. He declared, "Those stop loss in the Army are now over. There are no Army soldiers stop-loss." So in 2006, he promised it would be over the next year and it wasn't and the same year after year until this year. So it took him five years to do what he promised Congress would be accomplished in one.

Gates opening statement bore the finger prints of the White House (including key phrases). While striving for poetry in discussing the military, the remarks came off plodding and obvious. True, some of that may have been delivery and deliverer. Mullen managed to pull off what Gates failed at. But what stood out most as he read his prepared remarks was his assertion at the start -- not in the written testimony submitted to Congress before the hearing -- that the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget "fully funds current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq." No, it does not. It does not because it cannot. Fiscal Year 2012 kicks off October 1, 2011. Though there may be answers by then on what's going to happen in Iraq, there are no answers right now. Will the US military stay in Iraq (under the Defense Dept umbrella) beyond 2011? If so, that's not budgeted for. If not, the budget really doesn't include various contingencies regarding dates. Meaning if all but the troops being shoved under the State Dept's umbrella leave Iraq and take any necessary equipment with them, the leaving process, when it starts, how it's done, itself will dictate costs. At this point the White House hopes the SOFA gets extended. But they don't know it will. And no one knows the costs for Iraq in 2012. That includes Mullen and was established on The Late Show with David Letterman (CBS). Adm Mike Mullen, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, was a guest on Monday night's show.

David Letterman: Tell us about troops coming home. Iraq? Up and functioning on its own? Not functioning on its own?

Adm Mike Mullen: Well Iraq's actually doing pretty well. We've still got 47,000 troops there -- that's from almost 200,000 a couple of years ago. We will continue to downsize that footprint. Right now, to zero -- based on the agreement we have with the Iraqis. Whether the Iraqis will ask us for some kind of small footprint in the future is to be determined here in the next few months.

He spoke matter of factly.."Whether the Iraqis will ask us for some kind of small footprint in the future is to be determined here in the next few months." And until you know the size of the "footprint," you can't really budget for it. No one wanted to make that point on the Committee -- Democrat or Republican. Iraq was barely even noted -- despite the fact that in the last 8 days, 8 US soldiers have died in Iraq.

Senator Patrick Leahy: I supported going into Afghanistan for the purpose of getting Osama bin Laden after 9-11. This Subcommittee and all of us here on this Appropriations Committee have been strongly supportive of that. I did not support the invasion of Iraq which distracted us from that goal. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We'll be paying for this cost for years to come. We borrowed the money to go into that war -- something extraordinary thing in a war to borrow the money -- continue to borrow the money. At the same time, we gave a tax cut for anybody who makes as much as a member of Congress. So what we said was we'll let our children and our grandchildren pay for these two wars.

And that was pretty much it for Iraq from the Senate. If US troops don't get out of Iraq, be aware that we'll be hearing from Congress that 'we took our eye off the ball in Iraq to focus on Afghanistan -- even after bin Laden was killed!!!' We'll stay with Leahy for a second longer. If Howard Zinn were still alive, he'd grab the exchange for one of his history books (and probably quote from the exchange in at least one essay). What the transcript below won't provide you with is the nasty way in which Gates speak. Picture Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest, specifically the Pepsi board room scene.

Senator Patrick Leahy: How long -- How long do we support governments that lie to us, when do we say enough is enough? Secretary Gates, I'll start with you.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: Well first of all I would say based on 27 years in the CIA and four-and-a-half years in this job, most governments lie to each other. That's the way business gets done.

Senator Patrick Leahy: Do they also arrest the people that help us --

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: Sometimes.

Senator Patrick Leahy: -- when they say they're our allies?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: Sometimes.

Senator Patrick Leahy: Not often.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: And, uhm, sometimes they send people to spy on us. And they're our close allies. So --

Senator Patrick Leahy: And we give aid to them?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: -- that's the real world that we deal with.

Leahy was referring to Afghanistan. Only. Sadly. You have to wonder if Congress gives a damn when the reports are about this reporter beat up or this NGO activists targeted or any of it at all. At any rate, they were discussing Afghanistan and when Gates leaves, he'll be taking his bitchy with him. (Leon Panetta does not have a history of bitchy. He has not been confirmed to the post but it's a rule of thumb that if you served in Congress, you're an easy confirmation vote. They don't vote against their own.) As Diane Sawyer and the others try to put this glow around Gates, they ignore his most prominent characteristic: His bitchy nature. And it emerged in the hearing and continued to build until, with all the snideness his prarie twang could muster, Gates said, of Afghanistan, "I'm not talking about a Vermont democracy." Leahy's no fool and rightly heard the insult in that remark and snapped, "Neither am I, Mr. Secretary, and you know that!" It was a rare moment of anger from Leahy who is not know for showing anger in run-of-the-mill hearings. (Gates made clear his disdain for Congress in an interview to NPR earlier this month.) As has been the case anytime the two of them appeared before Congress together, it was left to Mullen to try to restore order (and Gates did a nasty little look where he turned his face so far to the side that, for a moment, he looked like he might do a full-on, Linda Blair Exorcist head twist.)

Senator Lamar Alexander did note Iraq when asking about how much money other countries were paying for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Gates insisted it wasn't the case with Libya but with the other two the US bore the bulk of the financial costs. Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, is on the Subcommittee and her office notes these comments:

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tough questions regarding some of the all too often overlooked human costs of the ongoing war in Afghanistan during a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD). Senator Murray also asked how these long-term costs are being factored into the decision to drawdown forces in Afghanistan. During the exchange Senator Murray expressed her strong belief that these costs of war, including the rising rate of suicide among veterans, the lack of access to much needed mental health care, and the increased number of tours of current service members, must be taken seriously by the Pentagon and the White House, particularly in decisions to bring troops home.
"Many of these service members have sacrificed life and limb in Afghanistan and we as a country are going to be taking care of them and their families not just today, not just when they return home, but for a lifetime," Senator Murray said today.

Excerpts from the exchange and the full text of Senator Murray's questions below.

Secretary Gates, last Friday I visited the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda and had an opportunity to talk to a number of our wounded warriors, their dedicated providers, and their caregivers.
As you know well, many of these service members have sacrificed life and limb in Afghanistan and we as a country are going to be taking care of them and their families not just today, not just when they return home, but for a lifetime.
As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I take this issue very seriously and I've been trying to draw attention to this all too often unseen human cost of the war in thinking about how we should consider that as part of our decision in any long-term conflict.
I think you know, the major components of this long-term war include the fact that deaths from suicide among veterans and service members from this war are on par with combat deaths, many of our warriors are facing difficult challenges accessing needed mental health care when they return home, And that many of the service members serving in Afghanistan today are on their third, fourth, or even fifth tours.
So, while we have talked a great deal about costs in terms of rebuilding projects, Afghan aid, and military resources -- I wanted to ask you today what you -- and the Pentagon -- consider to be the biggest costs of this war to our wounded warriors and their families -- particularly those costs that we will be paying for for a very long time and whether that is ever considered or factored in when you're making decisions about drawing down in Afghanistan?

Excerpts from Sec. Gates' response:

"I cannot say that decisions in terms of drawdowns or military strategy are made bearing in mind the costs of the soldiers, and the sailors, and the marines who suffer, it is on the minds of everybody who makes those decisions, but by the same token, it is the nature of war and it is frankly one of the reasons why, as I told an interviewer a couple of weeks ago, I feel I have become more conservative, more cautious, about when you use force because I've seen the consequences up front," said Sec. Gates.
"The costs are exactly as you described, in lives that are shattered, in bodies that are shattered, and in minds that are shattered," said Sec. Gates. "So from our part, in addition to the VA, we have tried to make sure that these funds for these programs have been protected and will be protected in the future."

Excerpts from Adm. Mullen's response:

"Senator, first of all, I appreciate your leadership on this because it has to have a voice. I actually believe we are just beginning to understand this," said Adm. Mullen in response to Sen. Murray's questions. "Leaders have to continue to focus on 'what are these costs' and I thought you said it very well, it is to repay this debt for the rest of their lives and we need to stay with them so that we understand what that means."
"There are time bombs set up that we know are out there, we just don't know when they're going to go off," Adm. Mullen continued. "The relationship that the Pentagon has with the VA and with communities throughout the country has got to get stronger."
"These costs are longstanding, we don't understand them as well as we should… not just for our members, but also for our families, we see that time and time again. Our families have become almost as much a part of our readiness as anything else and it wasn't that way 10 or 15 years ago. Without them we would be nowhere in these wars," said Adm. Mullen.

On hearings, I still hope to note a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing before the week is over. But I was at the Subcommittee hearing above and winning a bet from a friend that Gates would get nasty and bitchy. No one ever reports on that and I'm beyond tired of the hagiography surrounding The Bob Gates Farewell Tour. I also think it says a great deal about how little Iraq is on the lawmakers' minds. Last night, the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley did find Pelley noting the 2 deaths announced yesterday -- 2 soldiers who died in Iraq on Monday and whose deaths were announced yesterday -- as the lead in to a report by David Martin on the toll the wars have taken on military spouses. Others? It'll wait until Sunday. But on hearings we may cover, a friend's passed a transcript of a hearing I did not attend over. I don't cover that committee, I don't care for the Chair. But I agreed to read over it and we may find something in there to use. (If we do cover it, I will note I was not present and I'm using a transcript -- which is supposed to be either already posted or will be posted online at the Committee's website by noon tomorrow.) We're juggling a number of things that need coverage and something's are getting placed on hold and something's there's just not going to be time for.

Today USA Today's editorial board notes of the Department of Veterans Affairs:

The GAO's report describes a dysfunctional security system and identifies 284 sexual assaults at 105 facilities in a three-and-a-half year span. The victims included men and women, employees and patients. Some were being treated for mental illness, substance abuse or post-traumatic stress -- people at their most vulnerable.

The only conclusion is that, despite their protestations, VA leaders -- like Pentagon and military academy officials before them -- haven't paid enough attention to sexual assaults in places under their jurisdiction.

While the VA's health care system is considered generally good, this latest scandal is just one in a series of failures that have beset the department over the years: Long waits for disability claims. Even longer waits for appeals. Lost or destroyed records. Maintenance problems in clinics. Dirty equipment used for colonoscopies. And now, sexual assaults.

It's an editorial worth reading in full and hopefully it'll put some pressure on the VA, force them to become responsive. Yesterday's snapshot noted the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health hearing and the subject the editorial's focusing on. Last night Ava covered the hearing at Trina's site with "A failure of VA leadership (Ava)," Wally covered the hearing at Rebecca's site with "Who's crunching the numbers at VA? (Wally)" and Kat covered it with "What is sexual assault?"

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

They really are stupid

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, FOREVER IN A DESPERATE SEARCH FOR ADULATION, HURRIED TO PUERTO RICO YESTERDAY AND OUR AMERICAN PRINCESS AND HIS ADVANCE TEAM LIED CLAIMING ONLY HE AND JFK VISITED PUERTO RICO AS PRESIDENT: GERALD FORD, YOU F**KING LOSERS, GERALD FORD. SCOTT HORSLEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IF HE COULD HAVE TAKEN BARRY O'S COCK OUT OF HIS MOUTH LONG ENOUGH TO ASK SOME NEEDED QUESTIONS.

MANGLING THE LANGUAGE IN A WAY THAT MADE BULLY BOY BUSH SOUND ELOQUENT BY COMPARISON, AMERICA'S PRINCESS DECLARED PUERTO RICO WAS AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE OR AS ARROZ CON GRANDULES. BUT ARROZ CON GRANDULES -- RICE WITH PIGEON PEAS -- IS NOT "AMERICAN." IT IS CONSIDERED PUERTO RICO'S "NATIONAL DISH." BY IT'S VERY NATURE, A DISH OF AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY (THE U.S. OCCUPIES PUERTO RICO), A DISH THAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE "NATIONAL DISH" CAN NOT ALSO REPRESENT ANOTHER NATION.

BARRY O NEEDS TO STICK TO PICKING OUT PANTIES. HE AND HIS CULT WITHIN THE PRESS CAN ALMOST MANAGE THAT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

CNN and AP both report that the US military has announced 2 US soldiers were killed yesterday. Other than stating the deaths took place in southern Iraq, the military had nothing else to say. Were there any wounded? As we noted yesterday they appear to

be under orders to no longer note when soldiers are injured. The 2 deaths announced

this morning follow last week's 6 deaths. 5 on Monday,: Spc Emilio J. Campo Jr., Spc Michael B. Cook Jr., Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, Spc Robert P. Hartwick and Pfc Michael C. Olivieri. Wounded? The military's refused to say but reports vary from five to fifteen. The sixth death was last Pfc Michael J. England on Wednesday. And though the military never bothered to inform the citizens of any wounded, thanks to Ryan E. Little (The Ledger) we know that Spc Charles Lemon was injured in the same Najaf bombing and "lost both legs and suffered other injuries including burns to his body."

Last week, on Monday, ABC's World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer didn't have time

to note 5 US soldiers died. It'll be interesting to see if the program makes time to note

the 2 deaths. The Pentagon counts [PDF format warning] 4464 US military deaths from the Iraq War -- that count does not include today's two deaths. After DoD identifies the fallen by name in a news release, the deaths will be added to the count.

[. . .]

Turning to the US Congress. We have to hearings but we'll probably only have room for one today. So let's drop back to yesterday. Monday afternoon, the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing. On what? Last week, Ava reported on some very disturbing developments discussed in a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing "Sexual assaults at the VA (Ava)." As Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Patty Murray noted, the Government Accountability Office had just released "very disturbing information about sexual assaults among veterans in in-patient mental health and other programs." The veterans she referred to were assaulted within the VA, while attempting to obtain care and treatment, they were sexually assaulted. The House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health is Chaired by Ann Marie Buerkle. We'll note this from her opening statement at yesterday's hearing.

Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: As a registered nurse and domsetic violence counselor, I have seen firsthand the pervasive and damaging effects sexual assault can have on the lives of those who experience it. Last week, the Government Acountability Office released a deeply troubling report entitled "VA Health Care: Actions Needed to Prevent Sexual Assaults and Other Safety Incidents." GAO found that between January 2007 and July 2010, nearly 00 sexual assault incidents including 67 alleged rapes were reported to VA police. Many of these alleged crimes were not reported to VA leadership officials or the VA Office of the Inspector General in direct violation of VA policy and federal regulations. The findings of the GAO are disturbing for many reason. Foremost, they represent a betrayal of trust by a system that was designed to treat our veterans at their most vulnerable time. The gross failure of VA leadership to protect the safety and security of our veterans and VA staff and systematically report and respond to sexual assault and safety incidents is a contempt of justice. It also requires immediate action. This is not the way to run a health care system and it is certainly no way to treat the men and women who sacrificed so much on our nation's behalf.

To telegraph how serious the House VA Committee -- not just the Subcommittee -- was taking this issue, not only did Subcommittee Chair Buerkle and House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller introduce HR 2074, Miller also attended the hearing (he does not sit on the Subcommittee). HR 2074 is the Veterans Sexual Assault Prevention Act. It was introduced by Buerkle on June 1st and reads: "To amend title 8, United States Code, to require a comprehensive policy on reporting and tracking sexual assault incidents and other safety incidents that occur at medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs." Click here to read the bill in full.

Miller noted, "In the past week, some have dismissed these allegations, comparing the size of the VA system and the number of allegations to the private sector. Let me be very clear on this point: There is no comparison. Just one assault of this nature, one sexual predator or one veteran's rights being violated within the VA is one too many and is absolutely unacceptable. If we need to do more to protect our veterans and VA employees, we will." Ranking Member

VA is doing a very poor job in many areas. Most of all it is doing a very poor job when it comes to reporting to Congress, when it comes to appearing before them. This really started to become noticeable last year and has only gotten worse this year. On the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, this unacceptable behavior is most often called out by Senator Richard Burr. For his admonishing the VA last week, see Kat's "Senator Burr" and you can also search her site for additional reports on Burr (Kat usually emphasizes him when she reports on the Senate VA Committee) and you'll see this is not a one hearing problem. This is a pattern and it's really unacceptable. Ranking Member Burr and Committee Chair Murray have attempted to communicate that to the witnesses before them (and Ranking Member Burr and former Chair Daniel Akaka attempted to last year as well). If the message is getting through to the witnesses, they're not carrying it back to VA. That was evident in yesterday's hearing with the first panel. The panel was composed of GAO's Randall Williamson, VA's Joseph Sullivan and VA's William Schoenhard. We're noting an exchange. I'm referring to Jeff Miller as "US House Rep" so that there's no confusion as to who was chairing the Subcommittee hearing but, as already noted, he is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

US House Rep Jeff Miller: The [GAO] report covers '07 to July of 2010. Can you tell me what the statistics are from July of 2010 to today of sexual assaults that have been reported within the system?

William Schoenhard: Uh, sir, we do not have that information available here today but we will provide that to you.

US House Rep Jeff Miller: Would it have been a reasonable expectation that somebody might be asking that question?

William Schoenhard: Uh. We. Uh. Had not anticipated that question but we do have the information. We can provide that to you in short order, sir.

US House Rep Jeff Miller: If you would, for the record, so that we can make sure that all members have the answer to that question. When can we expect it?

William Schoenhard: Uh. We would provide that, sir, within three weeks.

US House Rep Jeff Miller: Three weeks?

William Schoenhard: Yes, sir. I want to make sure that we have all the information together in a complete way. We will try to provide it sooner.

US House Rep Jeff Miller: I hope that you have all the information together and that it won't take you three weeks.

This hearing was specifically called by Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle in response to the GAO report. The witnesses knew that. Why in the world would a question about sexual assaults after the period covered in the GAO's report throw the VA? They were not prepared for the hearing unless their point was to stall. This is unacceptable. They do this over and over. The VA avoids providing any hard data in these hearings over and over. Why? Because the reporters are present. If they can provide the figures after the hearing, the reporters have packed up and moved on. Which means, if they don't have to answer it in the hearing, there's a good chance it won't be reported.

If this is an accident, it is a freakish one since a pattern has clearly emerged. Miller was clearly surprised to be told that the VA witnesses had arrived for the hearing without that information. He was also surprised when he was told that they had the information, but it would take three weeks to get it to Congress. Why? If they've got the information, it should be delivered to the Subcomittee within 24 hours. It's a spreadsheet, you input the numbers. No one's asking them to devise a new system of measurement or invent a new graph. They just have to plug in the numbers.

If you're not getting how much stalling and evasion is taking place, please note that it was pointed out that money allocated for securing VA properties was being spent elsewhere. It was noted by members of the committee.

US House Rep John Runyan: Mr. Schoenhard, the GAO found a number of facilities that were understaffed. Specifically there was one that, by criteria, there was supposed to be 19 and there was only 9 on hand. Why have you not been able to staff these facilities fully?

William Schoenhard: Uh, Congressman, that's a very important question because we need to be fully staffed with police coverage and that is part of what I am seeking to understand in, uh, our current survey of our field. Uh, I want to understand better what the retention and the recruitment difficulties are with that and see what steps need to be taken to address those.

US House Rep Jon Runyan: Do you -- that was going to be my next question. Do you have an idea of retention problem? Is there a major turnover within the system?

William Schoenhard: There is turnover which varies, sir, by facility and uhm that too is what I want to get a better sense of. [. . .]

He wants to get a better sense of it? The Deputy Under Secretary for Health Operations and Management for the VA should have already had a sense of it before he showed for the hearing. In addition, the economy's in the tank. How do you have problems hiring people? Equally true, from 2008 through 2010, the House Committee repeatedly asked all VA witnesses if they needed anything, additional resources, anything. They were repeatedly told that nothing was needed.

If a VA is understaffed, the VA, high up in the VA, should be aware of that and should be addressing it. If a sexual assault is reported at that VA and it is under staffed, the VA should have had their own emergency meetings to address that and should have arrived in Congress with answers. They didn't provide answers. They begged off repeatedly.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"2 US soldiers announced dead, hostages taken in Baquba"
"Death penalty, War Crimes and more"
Cedric's "Barry's got plenty of ideas -- always bad ones" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! ROUGH WATERS!" went up. That was their joint-humor post. The non-humor posts last night revolved around a theme: write a book you have and that you've selected at random: Mike's "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" (Pauline Kael's movie critiques), Trina's "Collected Stories" (Tennessee Williams' Collected Stories), Rebecca's "pigs at the trough" (Arianna Huffington book), Kat's "Rock Encyclopedia" (the classic text), Ann's "4 men, 1 woman" (Gore Vidal's Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace), Marcia's "Embassytown" (China Mieville's new novel), Elaine's "Left Bank and Other Stories" (short stories by Jean Rhys), Ruth's "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" (novelizations of Disney films in an attempt to increase reading among children -- this is a novelization of a Disney film starring Kurt Russell), Betty's "Lorraine Hansberry: The Collected Plays" (the title says it all but for any who might not place the name immediately, she is the playwright who wrote A Raisin in the Sun) and Stan's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (Greg Palast's classic book).

Monday, June 13, 2011

Barry's got plenty of ideas -- always bad ones

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

BECAUSE HE'S ALWAYS WILLING TO ATTACK DEMOCRATS, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O UNLEASHED ON A PRIVATE MANNER.

AMERICA'S PRINCESS WASN'T JUST BUSY GOING AFTER DEMOCRATS, BARRY O WAS ALSO GETTING FEEDBACK FOR HIS NEW CAMPAIGN AD IDEA.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Friday, a US Congressional delegation was in Iraq. A number of claims were reported in the media. The easiest explanation for the conflict between what the Congress members maintain and what was reported is that the spokesperson of the prime minister (Nouri al-Maliki is prime minister) was attempting to whip up public sentiment in Iraq at a time when Nouri's popularity was, at best challenged. On Sunday, noting the delegation, I summarized a report by stting it was "on the expulsion from Iraq of the US Congressional delegation led by US House Rep Dan Rohrabacher". I was wrong, it was my error. The delegation maintains they were not expelled from Iraq. My apologies for my error. The three strongest reports from the weekend are worth highlighting. First to file with facts was Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) whose report still stands:

After a "very frank" exchange with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a prominent House Republican announced Friday his subcommittee is investigating whether forces under al-Maliki's command had committed a "crime against humanity" when they killed 35 Iranian dissidents at a camp north of Baghdad on April 8.
Responding to the assertions by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., al-Maliki asked the U.S. Embassy to remove the U.S. delegation from Iraq immediately, government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said on Alhurra television.

Note that Ali Dabbagh is Nouri's official spokesperson and one of four people Nouri has designated to officially speak for the government. That's not a joke. We'll drop back to the April 8th snapshot because Arabic media covered it but the US media wasn't interested:

Nouri's attempt at seizing control of the government never ends. Al Rafidayn reported this week that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh informed the press that from now on all official remarks will come from either a spokesperson for the Ministry of Government, a spokesperson for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nouri or Nouri's spokesperson. Statements by any other government official or spokesperson, al-Dabbagh insisted, had "no value" from Wednesday forward.

Also this weekend, Tim Craig (Washington Post) reported that the delegation was refused the right to visit Camp Ashraf:

Rohrabacher, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he will now press for a "criminal" probe of whether Iraq has mistreated the dissidents.

"We are investigating to see if criminal behavior caused the death of these noncombatants," Rohrabacher said. "The killing of unarmed people . . . a mass killing . . . is a criminal act and a crime against humanity."

The third strong report was from Chelsea J. Carter and Mohammed Lazim (CNN) who noted they were unable to speak with the delegation for their report:

Embassy spokesman David Ranz issued a statement Saturday saying "congressional visitors do not necessarily express the views of the U.S. administration or even a majority of Congress. The visitors this weekend made that clear in their remarks."
In widely reported statements after a meeting Friday with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the California Republican said he informed the Iraqi leader that his House committee is investigating the killing of Iranian exiles by Iraqi forces.

Here is the statement US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher's office issued (we were sent it this morning):

Istanbul, Turkey, Jun 11 - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) issued the following statement on his recent meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki while in Baghdad as part of an official Congressional delegation:

"We had a frank and spirited discussion about the Camp Ashraf massacre by Iraqi troops," said Rohrabacher. "There was never any indication the Prime Minister was angered by having this discussion or the during the portion of the conversation about the current economic situation in the U.S., which lead to the suggestion of repayment by the Iraqis.

The meeting was originally scheduled for an hour but continued for an extra 40 minutes.

"No apologies are necessary for suggesting the massacre of unarmed civilians by Iraqi troops is something that needs to be investigated and I plan to do so as Chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee," said Rohrabacher.

"Furthermore, I will not apologize for suggesting once Iraq becomes prosperous, it should consider repaying the United States for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to liberate them from a tyrannical dictator and helping to establish a democratic government," Rohrabacher continued. "There's nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them."

In response to media reports the delegation had been expelled from Iraq, Mr. Rohrabacher said, "There was no change in our scheduling while we were in Iraq. Our itinerary remained exactly the same and we departed as scheduled.

"We were not officially told to leave the country before we left and were never told or warned not to come back."

On May 26th, Rep. Rohrabacher announced his intention of conducting a hearing into the April 8th massacre at Camp Ashraf in eastern Iraq where 35 unarmed civilians were killed and scores more injured during an attack by Iraqi soldiers. Mr. Rohrabacher's request for delegation access to the site was denied by the U.S. State Department and the Iraqi government.

They were in Turkey following their pre-planned agenda. They were not kicked out. Rohrabacher's statements note that he did raise the issue of repayment with Nouri and that he did raise the issue of Camp Ashraf (a far more serious issue and not a hypothetical one -- though Think Progress flat-out LIED this weekend and has filed another LIE today, some people are shameless and disgrace the Democratic Party with their inability to be truthful). Key point of the press release? The delegation announced their intention to visit Camp Ashraf publicly in a House hearing. The planned visit was known long before Friday (we noted the plan visit here). But they were denied that visit and not just by Nouri but also "denied by the U.S. State Department." It's also interesting just how many outlets are still reporting that they were kicked out. All the usual losers, yes -- Fox News, Think Progress, etc. -- but some you'd expect more from.

Friday, US House Rep Ted Poe had issued a statement:

"I am deeply disappointed that Members of Congress were denied access to Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi government. Earlier in the day, we had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Al-Maliki for nearly two hours and heard his candid position on this complex issue. These discussions were important and productive. However, it was also important to be able to hear the position of the residents of Camp Ashraf in order to get a fair assessment from both sides of what really occurred that day. We were not allowed to hear their side of the story. It is unacceptable for the Government of Iraq to continue to silence the Iranian freedom fighters at Camp Ashraf."

Rohrabacher, Poe, Jeff Duncan and Louie Gohmert were the Republican Congress members on the trip, Jim Costa and Russ Carnahan were the Democrats in the delegation.

"Crisis 2012!"
"THIS JUST IN! CAMPAIGNING!"

Cedric's Big Mix