Cedric's Big Mix: 2011-07-10

Saturday, July 16, 2011

The dancing queen

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS RAKED IN MILLIONS FOR HIS 2012 RE-ELECTION ATTEMPT AS A RESULT OF 244 BIG BUNDLERS.

INFORMED THAT $86 MILLION'S BEEN RAISED FOR HIS RE-ELECTION, BARRY O SIGHED, STOOD AND SAID, "EXCUSE ME, I'VE GOT TO PUT ON THE G-STRING AGAIN. TIME FOR MORE LAP DANCES."

AN EXCITED JAY CARNEY IMMEDIATELY BEGAN SQUEALING FOR SOMEONE TO GIVE HIM 20 ONES FOR HIS 20 DOLLAR BILL.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

ABC News Radio reports, "An American service member was killed Friday in Iraq, bringing the number of those who have been killed or have died in that country to four for the month of July." This makes for 19 US service members killed in the Iraq War in six weeks, 15 last month, 4 so far this month.

As they continue dying, the governments of Iraq and the US continue to explore keeping the US military in Iraq for many years to come. Alsumaria TV reports, "In a statement to Al Iraqiya, Al Maliki noted that Iraq needs to keep a number of US trainers to train Iraqi Forces on newly purchased air, land and naval weapons. The extension of US Forces term in Iraq necessitates a new agreement that should be voted upon by two thirds of Parliament lawmakers, Al Maliki said noting that this is difficult to be attained." Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) notes:

"Iraq needs the Americans for training on the sea, air and ground and sea weapons," he said in an interview with state- sponsored Iraqiya television. "This does not need the approval of parliament," he said.

Nouri is correct, he does not need the approval of Parliament -- we pointed that out in yesterday's snapshot. In part, he doesn't need it because he's made it precedent that he doesn't need it (by renewing the UN mandate at the end of 2006 without the approval of Parliament -- UN mandate that covered the occupation of Iraq -- and again at the end of 2007). Even if he was legally required to have their approval, Nouri's never concerned himself much with legality which is another reason the Iraqi peoples' voice in the 2010 elections should have been honored (which would have meant that loser Nouri not continue as prime minister). UPI reports that Dawa doesn't want US forces to remain in Iraq and they make a point to note that Dawa is Nouri's political party. It is. And it takes its orders from Nouri. Earlier this year, Dawa was full of talk of how they just might expell Nouri. They had every reason to. And yet they didn't. They have no power and they know it. They bask in the refracted light of whatever power Nouri manages to steal. Dawa just knew that Parliamentary elections would mean their true ascension. But Nouri didn't utilize them. Instead he put together a political slate (State of Law). Everytime Dawa could have stood, they chose to crawl or roll over and expose their belly in submission. To pretend that what a weak political party wants has any bearing on this issue is insane.

Dawa sent Haider al-Abadi out to make a statement. He's the political party's statement. Have we forgotten that Nouri has his own spokesperson? Or that he's designated who can and cannot speak for the government? Hint, Haider al-Abadi didn't make the list. The thing about taking a thug and grooming him into a tyrant is that you feed the ego over and over and there's no sense of connection or debt owed. Dawa waited too late to step forward and all they are now is angry child having a tantrum in a store.

Iraq was oh so briefly spoken of on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) today and only because US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had visited. By the way, when Diane can't remember on air (as she couldn't at the start of the hour) the outlet that her frequent guest Nadia Biblassy is with, it's really time for someone to step in and say, "Diane, go out before it gets really embarrassing." That little mini-struggle for recall of a basic fact and one that had been reviewed immediately prior to going on air? It's a sign of things to come.

Diane Rehm: All right. Let's talk about the visit of our new Secretary of Defense, Leon, pardon me, Panetta to Iraq. Tell us about it, Nadia.

Nadia Bilbassy: Well, basically this is the first visit. He's going there to nudge the Iraqi government to come up with a yes or no answer as whether they wanted the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq. As you know, this agreement that signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki will expire in December 31st. And it's called the status of forces agreement, known as SOFA. So basically, he's saying, in a very blunt language, like, you have to tell us. Damn it, as he said. He used very colorful language, in complete opposite of the soft spoken former secretary of defense Robert Gates. And they understand the complexity of the situation. The Iraqi government, lead by Maliki has a coalition, shaky coalition, of the Dawa party, of the Sadrist groups, of the Kurdish nationalists. So it's a group together that they have to decide whether they want to keep U.S. forces or not. Now, on the street, I think, the concept is very unpopular. They, basically, were reinforced what they believed, that the invasion of Iraq was to get hold of Iraq's vast oil revenues and to establish a military base in the heart of the Middle East in Iraq. I will -- my guess will be that they will come up with some kind of agreement by the end of the year. But probably, regardless of how many troops will be left, whether it's 10,000 or 15,000, they still need to protect one of the biggest embassy -- U.S. Embassy's in the world, which is in Baghdad. It has 5,000 personnel, intelligence, civil servants, et cetera. So they will have some kind of forces, but also it's a message to Iran that we're not going to abandon the country. It's not going to be your playing field, it's actually -- the U.S. was going to be -- have some kind of presence in Iran.

Diane Rehm: Nadia Bilbassy of Middle East Broadcast Center. Short break, we'll be right back.

And that's all Diane could manage on Iraq. Which is why fewer and fewer military families bother to listen to her show anymore. And, no, she didn't think to note that a US soldier had died today in Iraq. On the subject of Panetta, Al Mada reports rebel rouser Moqtada al-Sadr, has issued another statement, this one directed to US Secretary of Defense and declaring that "we" will turn Iraq into a graveyard for the US. "We"? Moqtada's going to be handling drone attacks from Iran? "We"? It's exactly his inability to stand up and do as he instructs that's eroded so much confidence in Moqtada among his one-time followers.

In 2008, Moqtada's stock was almost this low. Bush, Robert Gates and Condi Rice made a huge mistake in egging on Nouri (who didn't need all that much egging) to go after Sadr's militias. This allowed Moqtada to issue statements --as he always does -- but for the statements to have more meaning than they usually did. Suddenly, in the face of an attack by US and Iraqi forces, his rantings seemed heroic and his stature rose. If the US government wants to fight Moqtada for all eternity, they'll do something stupid like the Bush administration did. If they want to neutralize him, they'll treat him with derision and indifference. If they were really smart, they'd expose a few of the sweetheart deals Moqtada received under the previous admistration (Bush administration). His stock is lower than it's ever been and his credibility can be further undermined. But if they insist upon launching or encouraging Nouri to launch a wave of attacks against his militias, they will allow Moqtada to again become 'voice of the beseiged.'

Besieged describes the Iraqi people. James Denselow (New Statesman) observes:

Yet the shockwaves of the revolutions are being felt in Iraq. Last week, CNN reported Iraqi forces beating and detaining at least seven protestors as hundreds of angry demonstrators gathered on Friday in central Baghdad. Since early February, tens of thousands of protesters have participated in demonstrations every Friday across Iraq. Maliki, like his embattled western neighbour Assad, has approached the demonstrations with his own variety of carrots and sticks. He cut his $350,000 salary in half, plans to reduce the government to 25 ministerial positions by merging the ministries that perform overlapping functions, and has sought to make a constitutional change to ensure a two-term limit to the office of prime minister. What is more, following the initial protests, the Iraqi government announced that they would be cancelling the planned purchase of 18 US-made F-16 fighter planes, instead allocating the money to improving food rationing for the poor.

The sticks meanwhile include standard acts of violence, as well as drafting legislation that Human Rights Watch believes criminalises free speech and Iraqis' right to demonstrate. The authorities have tried to bar street protests and confine them (unsuccessfully) to football stadiums. Meanwhile, several incidents of the security forces attacking and killing protestors have been reported, including a bloody encounter on the 25th of February where 12 people were killed and over 100 injured.

The US appears largely unconcerned by the spread of protests to Iraq, with its focus on ensuring its strategic posture in the country. This cedes space in the battle for legitimacy being waged, mostly through proxy, by the Iranians. The actions of Muqtada al-Sadr in the face of an extension of the US presence will be particularly scrutinised. His group controls 39 seats in the gridlocked 325-member parliament. Last April, Sadr issued a statement promising that "if the Americans don't leave Iraq on time, we will increase the resistance and restart the activities of the Mahdi Army". However it is hard to evaluate the cohesiveness of the once-feared Mahdi Army. The Asaib al-Haq and Promised Day Brigade splinter groups are evidence of Sadr's difficulty in maintaining political control. Indeed, in recent weeks, he appears to have backtracked somewhat from bombastic threats against the US, although what exactly he will do remains an unknown.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Now they tell us he was lying 3 years ago

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

IN YET ANOTHER INDICTMENT OF THE PRESS CORPS, NEWS EMERGED THAT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O LIED REPEATEDLY IN THE 2008 CAMPAIGN IN THE PRIMARIES AND IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WHEN HE REPEATEDLY TOLD THE STORY ABOUT HIS MOTHER HAVING TO BATTLE WITH HER INSURANCE COMPANY AS SHE WAS DYING FROM CANCER. HE CONTINUED THIS LIE THROUGHOUT 2009 AND 2010 AS HE RAMMED OBAMACARE DOWN THE THROATS OF AMERICANS.

AND HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT WAS HIS MOTHER, YES, BUT ALSO BECAUSE SHE TURNED THOSE ISSUES OVER TO, IN HER WORDS, "MY SON AND ATTORNEY BARACK OBAMA."

SO WHEN HE DECLARED, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OCTOBER OF 2008:

For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.

HE LIED.

AND HE TOLD THAT LIE OVER AND OVER IN 2007, IN 2008, IN 2009 AND IN 2010.

YET THE PRESS THAT COMBED OVER EVERY DETAIL OF SARAH PALIN'S LIFE IN 2008 WHEN SHE ATTEMPTING TO BECOME VICE PRESIDENT, COULDN'T BOTHER TO FACT CHECK THE MAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

THE REVELATION IS AN INDICTMENT OF THE PRESS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Daniel Williams: I was deployed to Iraq in '03, was deployed with the 4th infantry division out of Fort Hood, Texas. During that combat deployment, I suffered mental and physical injuries that will forever be part of my life. I was exposed to an improvised explosive device. I injured my body, my brain and my mind. I received a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, but I believe that almost as severe as my injury is the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, an invisible injury that no one else can see but it haunts my every move. From the moment I got injured until the time that I was honorably discharged, I received very little help from the Army or even acknowledgement of my state. I went to the base clinic at Fort Hood, Texas where I was told that I was having anxiety disorder and readjustment issues but I would need to wait six months before I could get an appointment with a psychiatrist, just an initial appointment to be looked at. In the winter of 2004, after receiving no help or any hope of help, I attempted -- I attempted suicide by putting a 45 caliber pistol in my mouth while I was locked in a bathroom. My wife begged me to let her in but I wouldn't agree. She called the police and when the police arrived, I argued with them. Then they kicked down the drawer and at that time I pulled the trigger. By the grace of God the weapon did not go off. The officer handcuffed me and put me in the seat in the back of his police car. One of the officers attempted to clear the weapon but at that moment the weapon went off. The same round that refused to kill me went off perfectly for him. Thankfully no one was injured. I was admitted to the psychiatric ward of the base hospital and remained at in patient for two weeks. At this time I was diagnosed with readjustment issues and anxiety disorder but the physicians also acknowledged that I had PTSD. I was told by the doctors that the treatment record would be kept confidential and it was not. It took me over a year to be able to be put out of the military service because of my mental illness.

Daniel Williams went on to outline problems within the VA which included that health care givers -- doctors -- tasked with helping treat his PTSD were unaware that noises and crowds were, at best, off-putting and, at worst, harmful to his treatment. Another VA doctor thought shock treatment was the way to go with PTSD. When not dealing with those extremes, he had to deal with just the hassles of getting an appointment. He had one appointment, for example, scheduled today. Clearly, he did not make that appointment. When he explained he couldn't make it because he was going to be appearing before the US Congress, he was told, no problem, they can reschedule him for four months from now. That was the earliest they could fit him in, they said.

"Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on how we can close the gaps in mental health care for our nation's veterans," declared Senator Patty Murray today as she brought the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing to order. "We all know that going to war has a profound impact on those who serve. And after more than eight years of war, in which many of our troops have been called up for deployments again and again, it is very clear that the fighting overseas has taken a tremendous toll that will be with us for years to come. More than one-third of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who have enrolled in VA care have post-traumatic stress disorder. An average of 18 veterans kill themselves every day. In fact the difficult truth is that somewhere in this country, while we hold this hearing, it is likely that a veteran will take his or her own life."

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee heard from two panels this morning. The first was composed of Iraq War veteran Daniel Williams (who is now with NAMI), caregiver Andrea Sawyer, Dave Underriner (Chief Executive of Providence Health & Services, Oregon Region) and the Assistant Inspector General for Healthcare Inspections for the Office of the Inspector General covering the VA Dr. John Daigh. The second panel was the VA's William Schoenhard.

Andrea Sawyer is married to Iraq War veteran Sgt Loyd Sawyer. He was part of the Army Mortuary Affairs team. While serving with them in Iraq, "he began exhibiting signs of mental distress."

Andrea Sawyer: Upon his return, I tried for eleven months to get him help. Ultimately, I sat in a room with an Army psychiatrist and my husband and watched Loyd pull a knife out of his pocket and describe his plan of slitting his throat. Multiple episodes of hospitalization and intensive treatment followed before he was permanently medically retired from the Army due to severe PTSD and major -- major depression. Loyd immediately enrolled in care at the Richmond polytrauma center. In October 2008, he received a 100% permanent and total disability rating from the VA. Given his urgent need for extensive help, we tried to get him into the PTSD clinic in Richmond. But the first available appointment required a two month wait. When he was finally seen, we were told that the only thing available in the clinic would be a quarterly medication management session and a once-every-six-weeks therapy appointment. Knowing that his depression was spiraling and his PTSD symptoms were worsening, we elected to use his TRICARE. He began treatment with a civilian counselor. He was able to see him once or twice a week. But over the next six months, I became increasingly concerned about the imminent possibility of suicide. Despite getting little help from our local VA, but thanks very much to our Federal Recovery Coordinator, Loyd was able to enroll in an inpatient PTSD program at the VA Medical Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia. We had high hopes for this hospitalization but it turned out to be a nightmare. The program delivered on none of its promises. His counselors and doctors there never coordinated with his local VA mental health clinician, his civilian counselor or his Federal Recovery Coordinator. He was placed on medication that made him physically and verbally aggressive despite having been taken off that same medication for the same reason while on active duty. Over the course of this 90 day program, Loyd had fewer than five individual therapy sessions and on returning home promptly discontinued all of his medication which was a step bacward as he had been completely meds compliant for eighteen months leading up to hospitalization. In calling the Richmond PTSD clinic for help, I was told it would be four weeks before they could see him. I tried to have his primary care manager intervene but was told that I and his FRC were wasting the time of his primary care manager. Eventually, again with help from our Federal Recovery Coordinator, I was able to get Loyd an appointment within a week with a VA psychiatrist outside of the PTSD clinic. She suggested that he attend the weekly thearpy group that met with the clinician inside the Richmond PTSD clinic. Feeling rather hopeless, he decided to try the therapy group and actually found great solace in being able to relate with others you were experiencing the same symptoms he was. Unfortunately, four months later, and without consultation of the patients, the medical center staff announced that the VAMC was changing its treatment model and would be disbanding the group by year's end. For those wishing to continue in a group setting, the VA would be turning them over to an untested VA program without a clinician. Despite the veterans petitioning to remain in a VA clinical program, their year long effort has been unsuccessful except to temporarily the clinician. The 40 member group has withered to an average of five to seven because now, as a support group located off the VA campus, veterans cannot take sick leave to attend their meeting. My husband is a veteran with well documented, severe, chronic PTSD who gets treatment at one of VA's major VA polytrauma centers. We have all the advantages that should guarantee him good treatment -- an excellent, caring Federal Recovery Coordinator, the priority associated with a 100% service-connected disability rating, a fabulous OIF case manager and the assistance of a super VSO. If a veteran with all these advantages cannot access timely, consistent, appropriate veteran-centered care in this system dedicated to the care of veterans, what confidence can this Committee have that a newly enrolled veteran who has recently returned from the war zone will have a greater success?

She noted, rightly, that VA "is failing." I have no idea why the White House is coasting. I have no idea how they get away with it. Andrea Sawyer had a set of statistics that you hear over and over, year after year, if you sit through these hearings. One statistic that was new to me was that approximately 20% of veterans who are diagnosed by the VA with PTSD do not get a follow up visit within 12 months of their initial diagnosis. Sawyer called it a veterans mental health care crisis and it's pretty hard to dispute that if you're paying attention to what's actually going on. Excerpt from first panel questioning.

Chair Patty Murray: Thank you very much for your testimony. And, Dr. Daigh, let me start with you. You heard the testimony. The stories that we've heard before the Committee today are not unique. I hear them everywhere I go and Congress has been listening to this. We have responded with the resources, with legislation, new programs. The IG [Inspector General] has provided the oversight. Yet here we are and these stories are still here and they're relevant again today. You mentioned a little bit in your testimony some things you thought, coordination of care, those kinds of things. I heard you talk about Altanta. They needed the clinicians but it's not that they didn't try, you said, it's just that they weren't there. Is that lack of people available to hire, is it lack of resources, is it lack of -- Tell us what we need to be doing in order to make sure that the VA has what it needs or to be telling the VA what it needs to do.

Dr. John Daigh: I think that there -- from my understanding of the situation in Atlanta and looking at the data, there was a tremendous growth in the demand for mental health services over a relatively short period of time. I'm not -- And-and-and some of the assumptions that they made about how they would provide care, their inpatient ward for example, they thought it would be functional and it wasn't. So they had to adjust. And I think they could have made better decisions about how they adjusted. And our report says that we think they could have made better decisions about how they adjusted. But part of the problem is that if you have pre-arranged relationships with universities or private practices or clinics of specialists that you know you need and can easily call on them as opposed to fee basis where you say, "I can't meet your demand, here's a chit, go get care," if you have an organized way, the records are shared, they expect to see patients --

Chair Patty Murray: Which goes to the closed system that I think Mrs. Sawyer was referring to, is that correct?

Dr. John Daigh: I think it was -- I think it was along the lines of what she was saying where she was able to go outside the system and get some help that was [turned head from microphone as he continued talking and was inaudbile]. Okay, sorry.

Chair Patty Murray: Mrs. Sawyer, tell me what your experience was.

Andrea Sawyer: We actually were not able to use the fee-based system in the VA because my husband is medically retired. We have TRICARE and so we just simply chose to exercise the TRICARE benefit. It was not in conjunction with the VA. Even requesting fee based at Richmond, even for physical or mental care is a labor intensive process. It takes months, it's not easy to get done, it's really kind of a broken system. So it's -- Even though there has been a directive that people should be able to use fee-basis care in times of wait, you still have to get it approved and it almost takes, pardon the pun, an act of Congress to get it done.

Chair Patty Murray: Well Mrs. Sawyer, in your testimony, let's talk about that. You just told us time and time again you were fighting everything to get appointments, to get attention. Dr. Daigh mentioned needing a "captain of the team." Did you ever feel like there was a captain of the team?

Andrea Sawyer: Quite honestly, I feel like I'm the captain of the team. I feel that I monitor symptoms, I see the increase in symptoms, the decrease in his quality of life and at that time I activate the chain as it is. I call the FRC, I call the clinic, I call the OIF case manager. I do everything I can. The problem is, with the VA, we have found is time and time again I have gone in and said, "We are seeing this civilian counselor." I've said it to the neuro-psychiatrist, I've said it to the person he was seeing in the PTSD clinic, I've said it to his OIF case manager. It's in his records. And yet again and again, I get comments from the PTSD clinic, "We didn't know he was seeing anyone else." I'm sorry. You can Google it and find that he was seeing someone else. We haven't stayed quiet about it. And we just can't get them -- I hand the number over, I ask them to call his counselor, I am his health care power of attorney. Also there's a flag on his chart, I'm supposed to coordinate his medical information because of the cognitive processing disorder. I constantly say, "Please call his counselor." And they don't.

Chair Patty Murray: This is a full time, 24-7 job for you.

Andrea Sawyer: Yes, ma'am. I gave up my job. In order to keep him alive, that's what I had to do.

Chair Patty Murray: I hear that all the time and it has to have a huge impact on you. Tremendous amount of courage and I think about all the men and women out there who don't have Mrs. Sawyer as the captain of their teams. So I appreciate what you've been doing.

Andrea Sawyer: Thank you.

Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Williams, again, thank you for your service and all of what you're talking about is echoed in many other stories as well. You mentioned getting a hard time to get an appointment. I was curious from you whether any of the mental health care you receive is after hours or on weekends? That's another thing I hear from a lot of people who are trying to have a job, do other things and can't get the care because of lack of after hours or weekend services. Is that something that you've been able to access or see a need for?

Daniel Williams: There needs to be a larger amount of this care, yes. The access -- The only access I have to this is the vet center which is not communicating with the VA actual facility. This is a center where they do after hours counseling, they do marriage counseling. They're really not communicating, to be honest with you. They have no idea what's going on. There needs to be more of it, needs to be more advertised that there is this after hours care that can be used when you have -- You get off at six o'clock? Well have sessions at seven, eight o'clock at night. Uhm, you know, the family members need this care too because the family members have the same or gain the same PTSD or whatever the diagnosis may be as the veteran does. I know as Ms. Sawyer said, she gave up her -- pretty much her life to help her husband. And this is what happens not only to her but I think just about every family. Either the spouse leaves or the spouse stands behind them. And I know if it wasn't for the woman behind me, I would not have any care that I have today because she has given up her job too to take care of me. And there does need to be some more after hours. I know NAMI is partnering with the VA to do Family-Family. Family-Family is a program that helps the service member's family understand why they're doing the things that they're doing, why they're trying to get an adrenaline rush, why they're doing these little quirks that may not make sense to the family.

Chair Patty Murray: This may be a rhetorical question but it seems to me like people like both of you know this system really well, you're families have really borne the burden of this silent disorder of Post Traumatic Stess Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. We have a country that says "We're there for our soldiers" but you alone have borne this. Does the country understand PTSD? Do your neighbors and employers and people in the community know what you're going through or do you feel pretty alone? Either one?

Daniel Williams: To be honest with you, I feel very alone. The only other people that understand is my family. And when I say "my family," I mean my wife and other soldiers or other veterans. They're the only ones that understand the actual pain, the invisible pain I live with every day. And it's very, very hard to try to express to the nation. We get condolences, "thank you for your service" -- we hear that very often. But when was the last time someone actually said, "Alright, we need to make a change in the VA center. You need more services." That's the type thanks that I believe -- I take more to heart action than I do words. Because like I said, it's not only my suffering. I suffer from my Traumatic Brain Injury, my wife has to go through it, my kids have to go through it. So this is a never-ending cycle. My kids will have PTSD because of my actions. And if we could put peers together, family members like Ms. Sawyer and my wife together, more times the support for one another, not only for themselves but for us, it would be a stronger VA system. They've got to start looking at family oriented stuff. It's just the veteran [currently] and half the time the veteran can't even get stuff done. I mean it literally takes my wife getting to the point of getting arrested by the VA police to be able to see my psychiatric doctor because people are sitting on their phones, talking on their cell phones during business hours, telling me to hold on a minute, and I'm having a crisis where I'm fixing to honestly have a breakdown. And it takes people, like these two women, to have that. And not every veteran has that. Not everyone is fortunate enough. And I think that needs to somehow be a mentorship to veterans that don't have the support system.

Chair Patty Murray: Mrs. Sawyer, want to add anything?

Andrea Sawyer: Truly, I don't feel that the community understands. We spend a lot of time at the VA going to the VA is never just "go for an hour for an appointment." It's you go, you sit, you have a nine o'clock appointment and you might get seen by eleven. And then the doctor says, "Oh, we're only running two hours late today. That means we're on time." Then we sit for an hour. Sometimes it's not a good appointment then it takes hours for him to wind down. And get home and the neighbors say, "What do you do all day?" I talk to a lot of other caregivers who are in my situation and I've attempted to mentor some of the other caregivers because I do have a lot of time to deal with caregivers that I've met through Wounded Warrior Project who are at different stages in their recovery. And I've been privileged that they trust me to call and ask: "Okay, we're stuck. What do we do?" We've built our own strong network outside of the VA and that's really what I use to survive. We have a community kind of all to ourselves. We've kind of been ostracized from the community. I left my job teaching. I had great scores, you know for the be-all-to-end-all test at the end of the year that all teachers are judged by whether we say they are or not, great scores. But I had missed a lot of work. It was my fourth year, my tenure year, and it was Loyd's first year after he was retired. We were spending a lot of time at the VA which meant I was spending a lot of time out of the classroom and the principal came to me and told me I had to choose between getting my husband better and teaching. So I left. So, no, the community does not understand.

Chair Patty Murray: Well thank you very much for sharing that with us and, Mr. Williams, I know your wife is sitting directly behind you, we want to thank her for being here as well and all she does for you.

We're going back to Daniel Williams because in his remarks before questioning, he was summarizing his prepared remarks. Like Senator John Kerry, I'm not big on people (mainly government officials) coming in and reading word for word their statements. Beside it being dull, they end up with a false end because the time runs out and they just have to stop or quickly come up with a conclusion in the middle of their statement. Both Daniel Williams and Andrea Sawyer summed up their remarks and did not read their prepared statements. In his oral opening statement (noted above), he noted that his medical conditions and treatment were disclosed to others without his permission. In his written statement, he went into detail on that. I think that's an important issue and understand he had to condense but wanted to include his details on that from the written testimony (prepared remarks):

I was admitted to the psychiatric ward of the base hospital and remained at in patient for two weeks. At this time I was diagnosed with readjustment issues and anxiety disorder but the physicians also acknowledged that I had PTSD. I was told by the doctors that my treatment records would be kept confidential. However, my platoon sergeant was notified and she then proceeded to tell my fellow soldiers which in turn caused much heartache and turmoil for these guys with whom I had gone through war and had shed blood, sweat and tears. They began to look down on me, because in their eyes, I was weak and they thought that I would not be able to do my job, nor could they trust me to go back to war with them if we were called to do so. I think that there needs to be more punishment for non-commissioned officers or any other soldier who has access to soldier's private mental health records and does not keep that information confidential. As in the past and still today, if a soldier has a mental health issue and fellow soldiers learn about it, then confidence is borken and military careers unquestionably are harmed. It took over a year for me to receive my medical evaluation board decision, and during the entire period I felt the effects of almost daily ridicule from members of my unit, a great pressure that affected my PTSD. I felt I let my soldiers down -- that I was of no use to them anymore. I had lost my brotherhood.

No one should have their medical confidientiality violated and it's an important issue so I wanted to include that. At his site, Mike will be covering another aspect of the hearing and Ava will be at Trina's site later tonight ("much later" she says -- we just finished the round-table for the gina & krista round-robin before I started dictating the snapshot) to report on Senator Scott Brown as she usually does. I've got a call in to Kat to see if she wants me to write at her site since she usually covers Ranking Member Richard Burr (Kat's in Hawaii). Tuesday's snapshot covered the first two panels of Monday's House VA Subcommittee on Health hearing and Mike covered the third panel that night with "House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health hearing."

Thursday, July 14, 2011

New rules from Stitch Bitch Carney

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

ON THE HEELS OF YESTERDAY'S ANNOUNCEMENT FROM STITCH BITCH JAY CARNEY THAT QUESTIONS MUST NOT BE YELLED AT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, CAME A NEW LIST OF ORDERS FROM CARNEY.

AS HE ADJUSTED THE HEM LINE OF BARRY O'S SLIP AND WORKED ON GETTING STAINS OUT OF SILK PANTIES, JAY CARNEY DEMANDED THAT NO ONE CALL BARRY O BY HIS NAME ('HE'S TRYING TO GET INTO CHARACTER!"), ASK FOR AUTOGRAPH OR LOOK AT HIM.

"AVERT YOUR EYES AT ALL TIME," SNARLED THE STITCH BITCH. "HE DOES NOT LIKE TO BE GAWKED AT! ESPECIALLY NOT RIGHT NOW WHEN HE'S IN THE MIDST OF A JUICE FAT IN AN ATTEMPT TO LOSE THOSE NASTY LOVE HANDLES THAT JUST SEEM TO GET WORSE WITH EVERY YEAR. NOW, IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME, I HAVE SOME CROTCHLESS PANTIES TO ATTEND TO."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday on Flashpoints (KPFA, Pacifica), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who has left Canada to report from Libya on the illegal war. Excerpt.

Mahdi Nazemroaya: In regards to France, I have to point out that the Defense Minister of France made a statement which didn't please the United States. He said, we're willing to -- essentially, this is what he said -- we're willing to stop if there's political discussion and if Muammar Gaddafi switches his place in the government. It's not a total withdrawal, they're basically saying something symbolic. NATO's running out of steam here, the assessment is that they have 90 days to end this war, Ramadan which is a Muslim holy day is coming up, in September, I believe. [August 1st through 29th is Ramadan this year.] They have to end this war by that time. So they're looking for an exit strategy. This is what all this talk about negotiations is about because if anybody who follows the news and the news wires will see that the Libyan regime, Muammar Gaddafi and his government have been asking for negotiations from the beginning. The African Union has. Venezuela offered to be a negotiator between both sides or a go-between. Everybody has. The Chinese, the Russians have called for negotiations. The people that prevented it were the Obama administration, Mr. Sarkozy in Paris, Prime Minister Cameron in London and NATO. They're the ones who pushed it. And I have to point something out, the Italian prime minister said something very important about a meeting with David Cameron and Mr. Sarkozy. The president of France and the prime minister of Britain both said that the campaign should not end until there is a revolt in Tripoli against Col Gaddafi and his regime. What this signifies is that the intentions of these bombings was to create a revolt. The bombings did not start because there was a revolt, the intention was to create a revolt from the bombings, to make the people get fed up with Gaddafi and to overthrow him to end the bombings. That is what the intention was. That is why there's a siege on Tripoli and Libya. That's why they're bombing civilian sites. And I want to clarify, they bombed food storage places, medical clinics, hospitals, a place for children, a place for Down Syndrome, civilian residential areas, university campuses. These are the types of places they bombed. This was punishment on the Libyan people. And it backfired because it made Gaddafi very, very popular in Libya and across in Africa.

Kevin Pina: And you're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and that is the voice of Mahdi Nazemroaya our special correspondent coming to us direct from Tripoli, in Libya. We're discussing the situation on the ground there. Mahdi, I also understand there were some recent bombings again happening over Tripoli. What has, in the last two weeks that you've been there, can you just summarize what has been the overall impact of the NATO bombing campaign on the ground in the capitol of Libya?

Mahdi Nazemroaya: Well Kevin, there's been so many bombings and overhead flights by NATO war planes that I've lost track. That's the honest truth. They have been flying overhead and bombing. I hear bombings when I'm in the shower, I hear bombings when I'm outside. I hear their planes. It's hard to keep track. It's on the news, the Libyan TV talks about it. The [foreign] journalists here don't really cover it because it's not an issue for them. They're more concerned about making the Libyan government look bad. So they've bombed and this bombing has backfired. Instead of getting the population against the government, it's brought everybody together. It's unified the country. There's a new spirit. There's an actual call for global revolution again in Libya. Libya, for a long time the Libyans saw themselves as the center for global revolution. That's actually in the youth again. So when I talk to people in the street -- and I mean regular Libyans and Libyan society as a whole -- the youth, the elderly, children, people who have nothing to do with officialdom or the Libyan state -- they are in a state of high morale, they are totally against NATO and many of them now support Col Gaddafi -- even the ones who were his political opponents and disliked the man and his family and his son Saif al-Islam now support the man. This has brought the country together and this has backfired on NATO. This has totally backfired on them and it was a very big strategic mistake. The thing is that they thought this would be done in a matter of days, maybe in two weeks, something like that. But it wasn't. It wasn't a walk in the park for them at all.

Kevin Pina: And you're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and that is the voice of Mahdi Nazemroaya coming to us direct from Tripoli in Libya. And, Mahdi, we also hear reports that the rebels over the last week have taken several strategic towns and are making a drive towards the capitol of Tripoli and according to a lot of the western reports that we're hearing, their morale is equally high. So in a lot of ways, these two reports, one that we're hearing in Tripoli and the other that we're hearing from journalists embedded with the so-called rebels, are very inconsistent. How do we make sense of this inconsistency?

Mahdi Nazemroaya: Well let me say that I know some of these journalists and I knew some of these journalists before they left Tripoli, such as the ones in Misrata. I will point out that I personally -- on a personal basis -- question their professionalism, I question their intent in this country, alright? That's from my personal experience with them. In regards to towns falling like Sabha which they claim fell and its environs they took all the journalists who were willing to go to that city in Fezzan, I want to visit that city as well, it's in the south. They said it fell. It didn't. They said the gates of Tripoli had been reached. They hadn't. They've said that neighborhoods have fallen, they haven't. They've said that mosques have been closed, they haven't. I read those reports saying mosques have been closed and there's fighting every night. There isn't fighting every night. There is some fighting. That's true. At Tripoli, sometimes there's one or two people firing out of God knows where but that's only to destabilize this place and it's part of the psychological operation against this country. And I will let you know that there are special forces on the ground in Tripoli and they're here for sabotage and to break the morale here. They want regime change. And I'll tell you, NATO is not going to win this war. This war is unwinnable. And if they invade this country, they're fools.

As Elaine noted last night, Human Rights Watch has issued a report on the 'rebel' forces and how they are "responsible for looting, arson, and abuse of civilians in recently captured towns in western Libya". Click here for the Human Rights Watch report.

Last week, thug and First Lady of Iraq Moqtada al-Sadr was explaining who was to be socially welcomed and who was to be socially shunned. AFP reported that collaborators with the US would be shunned. AFP (and Moqtada) did not note that the US Embassy in Baghdad hopes to pull in the local population as contractors in 2012 and 2013. That would be more difficult if they're threatened and the man who issues fatawas loves to threaten. AFP reported, "Asked about whether Iraqis who had worked with the Americans as drivers, cleaners, builders or in other menial jobs could work with a government led by his movement, the cleric replied: 'yes they can, but not in administrative work,' suggesting they would not rise above low-ranking positions." Current workers are to be shunned and translators are social pariah according to Moqtada.

In today's New York Times, Tim Arango reports that it is these groups Moqtada has labeled undesirables -- "especially interpreters for the military" -- who are now suffering in the asylum process as they attempt to be granted admission to the United States. Arango notes, "Advocates say that the administration is ignoring a directive from Congress to draft a contingency plan to expedite visas should those Iraqis who worked for the United States government" and he notes that from October 2010 (start of the fiscal year) through last June, less "than 7,000 Iraqis have been admitted to the United States." If this trickle continues, Barack will be admitting less than George W. Bush was in his final year occupying the Oval Office. Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) adds, "A special program meant to distribute 25,000 visas to Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government has admitted just 7,000 since it started in 2008, officials said this week. In addition, the U.S. Refugee Admission Program, a global program that also admits Iraqis, will admit about 6,000 Iraqis this year, down from 18,000 in fiscal 2010."

Last April, John Hopkins University's Dr. Farrah Mateen gave a presentation in Honolulu at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Mateen gave an overview of the Iraqi refugee population in this video.

Dr. Farrah Mateen: So the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees recognizes more than 40 million refugees in the world today and there are currently more than 30 active, armed conflicts and we know very little about neurological disease in humanitarian emergencies and in times of humanitarian crisis. The war in Iraq actually began more than eight years ago now, March 20, 2003. And the UNHCR recognizes more than 3.5 million persons of concern of Iraqi origin and currently there are more than 2 million refugees who live outside of Iraq. The United States as well as western Europe, Australia and Canada are major recipients of Iraqi refugees today and continue to be. Iraqi refugees often have to seek humanitarian assistance in the countries where they flee to.

Neither Arango nor O'Keefe's article indicate that they attempted to get an answer on what's going on from the person in charge of the US Iraqi refugee program. Candidate Barack Obama swore that if elected president he would provide $2 billion for Iraqi refugees. That has still not happened. What's going on? O'Keefe notes State Dept employees spoken to. But the State Dept isn't over this. This doesn't fall under Hillary Clinton's scope. You'd think it would because she is Secretary of State; however, Barack put the War Monger Samantha Power in charge of many things Iraq including Iraqi refugees. This was made clear by plus-size model and then-White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs on August 14, 2009 when he issued a statement which included:

Further to discussions that took place during Prime Minister Maliki's recent meetings in Washington, President Obama is pleased to announce that Samantha Power, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council in the White House, will coordinate the efforts of the many parts of the U.S. government on Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), including the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense.

So what happened? Samantha Power was too busy spreading lies about Libya? It was Power who came up with the lie that Libyan women were being raped -- by assailants on goverment provided viagra!!!!! -- and it was her cohort Susan Rice that was tasked with popularizing that lie. When The Problem From Hell's actions demonstrate that the self-described "humanitarian hawk" isn't at all concerned with humanity, you're just left with a power-mad buttinsky craving the blood of others. No, that doesn't sound like someone who should have been tasked with the Iraqi refugee issue.

johnfdrake John Drake

Dear Baghdad press corps, please may I see some more headline puns involving the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

10 Jul

Turning to another member of the administration, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's visit to Iraq this week has not yet resulted in more press covergae than former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' Never-Ending Farewell Tour but give it time. On the trip, he stated that the US military would defend itself against Iran whom Panetta alleges is supplying weapons to Iraqi militias and that it would defend itself against Iraqi militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's militias. Al Mada reports that Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stated that the US military would not do military operations against al-Sadr. (It's not in the article but I'm told on the phone that al-Dabbagh also declared yesterday that the Panetta is mistaken and no military action against Iran will take place using Iraq as a staging platform as a result of the existing outlines in the SOFA and the Strategic Framework Agreement.) Meanwhile the editorial board of New Hampshire's Sentinel Source observes:

Today, there are still 46,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, some dying in supposedly non-combat roles. And the White House has begun to indicate that it will keep as many as 10,000 there past the end-of-the-year deadline -- if the Iraqi government asks for them to stay. Press reports quote unidentified briefers and foreign diplomats as saying that plans for retaining the troops indefinitely are already under way.

The administration's intention is clear in the open invitation it is waiving in the face of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, hoping for a come-hither gesture.

18 US soldiers have died in the last six weeks. Michael Evans (Times of London via The Australian) notes that fact and points out, "US President Barack Obama's 'final withdrawal' deadline was supposed to be the day when he could tell the American people the war in Iraq was finally over -- not 'mission accoplished' as his predecessor declared prematurely in May 2003, but an end to the large-scale US troop presence there. If the US military is asked to stay, albeit in smaller numbers, the risk is that the troops remaining will become targets.

RanjAlaaldin Ranj Alaaldin

by johnfdrake

Reliable #Iraq government source confirms to me that US troop presence will be extended. #SOFA #Kurds

10 Jul

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The sequel

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

AT THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY, THESE REPORTERS OBSERVED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O GETTING INTO WARDROBE AND REVIEWING HIS SCRIPT FOR THE DAY.

"ARNE DUNCAN MAKES THE WORST COFFEE!" BARRY O SNARLED SPITTING OUT A MOUTHFUL. "DO YOU WANT TO HEAR TODAY'S SCRIPT?"

ON THE HEELS OF YESTERDAY'S SCARE TACTIC OF NO SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS IF I DON'T GET MY WAY, BARRY O INTENDS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE PUBLIC LATER TODAY AND EXPLAIN THAT IF THE DEFICIT IS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE START OF NEXT MONTH, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXECUTE THE TOOTH FAIRY.

"WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD HER AND ALL HER QUARTERS, DOLLARS AND ALL OF THAT, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT! I NEED THE BODICE OF MY SLIP RIPPED! PEOPLE! I NEED THE BODICE OF MY SLIP RIPPED! WHERE IS THE STITCH BITCH! STITCH BITCH!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Debbie Schulz: Steven's life has changed since his injury and, of course, my life has too. I had been working as a special education teacher when he was injured. My husband and I, 51 and 49 [years-old], were preparing to become empty nesters. Instead, I became Steven's primary caregiver, advocate, lifeskills coach, chauffer, secretary, bookkeeper, teacher, drill instructor, medical assistant, physical-occupational-speech therapist and on and on. Leaving the workforce has created a financial hardship and our world and that of our then-18-year-old daughter and 15-year-old son has changed profoundly.

Debbie Schulz is the mother of Steven K. Schulz who was serving in Iraq when he was severely injured in a Falluja attack on April 19, 2005. She was testifying to the House Veterans Subcommittee on yesterday afternoon.

"Four months ago today, this Subcommittee held our first hearing of the year to discuss why the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had failed to implement the caregiver assistance program as required by Public Law 111-163," declared Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle yesterday afternoon. "At that hearing, it was clear to me that VA must go back and address serious deficiencies with the Department's initial implementation plan, particularly the strict eligibility requirements, and get this important program up and running." The Subcommittee heard from three panels, Debbie Shulz was the first panel, Wounded Warrior Project's Anna Freese and VA Caregiver Support Coordinators Cheryl Cox and Mary Fullerton made up the second panel while the third was composed of the VA's Deborah Amdur with Keith A. Welsh.

As Ranking Member Michael Michaud explained, the hearing was a follow up to the March 11th hearing by the Subcommittee. On the Senate side, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee March 2nd hearing (covered in that day's snapshot and Kat covered it in "Burr promises VA 'one hell of a fight'" and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "The VA still can't get it together"). What both Senate and House Committees learned in the two March hearings was that they had passed legislation that was very different from what the VA was implementing. Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, noted, "VA's plan on the caregivers issue was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the billt hat unanimously cleared this Congress. Three weeks ago, my Committee staff requested information on how that plan was developed and to date no information has been provided. Rather than following the law, the administration set forth some overly stringent rules, bureaucratic hurdles, that would essentially deny help to caregivers."

Schulz explained she was now rated by the VA for providing 40 hours a week of caregiving. She probably does a great deal more than that but it's not recognized. She did want it understood that when a wounded veteran returns, there's nothing so simple as 40 hours a week of care. She reviewed how, in her case, a great deal of time was taken with reorienting and dealing with confusing on the part of her son as to where he was and what was going on. There were sleep and other issues that had to be addressed including bathroom issues and the first weeks contained a great deal of work on reorientation. It's an important point but it's sad that she had to underscore it. A veteran with no apparent disabilities or challenges will need time to reorient themselves and they may require help on that. That a wounded veteran would need it should have been obvious to the VA with no caregiver having to point it out.

"I couldn't understand that," Debbie Schulz told the Subcommittee of disparities for caregivers and gave an example of "another caregiver" in Texas who cares for her son suffering from TBI with a spinal cord injury and unable to transfer himself out of his wheel chair is judged of doing only 25 hours of care a week. "How can that be right?" Schultz wondered.

Part of the determination of how much care is being provided is supposedly based upon a home visit (it's not clear whether that's the case or not and that's a failure on the VA's part -- it is supposed to be part of the determination).

Ranking Member Michael Michaud: You mentioned that the home visit wasn't what you expected it to be. What did you expect the home visit to be? And why -- is there anything that stuck out that they did that they should not have done?

Debbie Schulz: Well my understanding of the home visit was to make sure that the home was appropriate and to also assess my needs as well as Steven's needs. And being a social worker in another life, I know sort of how assessments should go so that may have jaded me. But he came in and didn't know who the veteran was. He thought I was the veteran at first. And I was like, "No, Steven." So he had not read the chart which was sort of a red flag to me. The second thing was after he's doing, going through making sure I know about infection control, nutrition, all these things that I've been doing for six years now, and Steven has obviously been healthy and happy and at a good weight -- not overweight or underweight, then he asks me if I know about catheter care? And Steven has never been at home with a catheter. Now for some veterans, that's an issue and I would need to know that. But I would like the VA to realize that those home visits are a real chance to come out and see what the needs of the veteran and the caregiver are. That's what I was expecting.

[. . .]

Ranking Member Michael Michaud: My last question, if you had to make one change within the system what would be the change that you would suggest?

Debbie Schulz: One change? You're going to limit me. I think I would really tighten up those disparities so that that artifical cap of hours because there are a lot of veterans that need more than 40 hours and what are we doing for them and how can you -- I mean that disparity is so discouraging. And so really working on that rule to get that right. So that it's not an artificial and so it's right across the country.

Chair Buerkle asked Wounded Warriors Project's Anna Frese, "What if you could change one thing with this program, where do you see a deficiancy or something that needs to be changed?"

Anna Frese: I think one of the issues is one that Debbie -- Ms. Schulz mentioned previously in dealing with the determination of the stipend and the range of hours. So I won't be redundant on that but I think that's something that attention definitately needs to be brought to. I think the second thing is the elegibility, the mental health elegibility criteria. The IFR [interim final rule] sets a much higher standard for elegibility with the current GAF score [a measure to assess functioning] in cases involving psychological trauma or other mental health conditions then for any other condition and there seems to be a disparity in the needs for a mental health compared to the different physical disabilities that others may be having. The amount of hours the family caregivers are providing regardless of either a physical disability or a mental health condition remain the same. There is a need there. I also here from others because seeing that GAF score and eligibility criteria, it has dissuaded many from applying -- just not understanding that they still might be eligible -- and it also can create a misunderstanding with some of the VA professionals that they work with. The education with that eligiblity criteria would be greatly helpful for the family members applying but also for some of the VA personnel that come into contact with the families where there is a need and they would benefit from this program.

We could highlight more of Frese with no problem but I'm not interested in the VA witnesses. I couldn't tell whether US House Rep Dan Benishek grasped that their very, very smiley face presentation or whether he bought into it. But when family members are telling you there's a problem and the VA's insisting that there's not, it may not be an issue of problems in one area of the country, it may be that the VA is putting a happy stamp on what's actually going on.

I found it appalling that Cheryl Cox and Mary Fullerton were asked about anyone being turned down but were not expected to explain why they were turned down -- either those specific unnamed people or families in general and in abstract. Cox spoke of one family that was turned down. And they were fine with it, she swore. Really? Can you think of anything you've ever applied for -- be it a loan, a college, a job, whatever -- that you were turned down for and you were happy? Fullerton apparently has had many more turn downs -- no one thought to ask her for a number but she was speaking in plural terms -- and if they wanted to appeal, she insisted, they knew she would be happy to help them.

If they wanted to appeal the person they chiefly interacted with before would be in charge of the appeal? How fair does that seem? Would you waste your time appealing in such a case? I don't think most people would unless they had the time to really fight.

I'm not interested in the garbage the VA spewed and, not being a member of the Subcomittee, I don't have to pretend to be. I thought the Chair and the Ranking Member did a strong job. Other than that, the only bright spot was when US House Rep Phil Roe (also a medical doctor) showed up and asked questions near the end of the second panel. Still on veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray's office notes the following:

VETERANS: Murray to Hold Hearing to Discuss Closing the Gaps in VA's Mental Health Care

(Washington, D.C.) --Thursday, July 14th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will hold a hearing to discuss access to mental health care services, including waiting times and staffing levels, outreach to veterans, integration of mental health care into primary care, suicide prevention and problems identified by VAOIG at mental health residential rehabilitation treatment programs. During the hearing, the committee will question professionals from the VA's various mental health programs, a Veterans Council Representative for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the caregiver and spouse of U.S. Army Sgt. Loyd Sawyer, the Assistant Inspector General for Health Care, and the head of a private sector health care delivery system. A full list of witnesses is available HERE.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee

WHAT: Hearing to discuss VA's mental health care services

WHEN: Thursday, July 14th, 2011
10:00 AM ET

WHERE: Russell Senate Office Building
Room 418
Washington, D.C.

The editorial board of the Intelligencer and Wheeling News-Register notes US President Barack Obama's claims that combat operations ended August 31, 2010 in Iraq and that all troops will be out of Iraq at the end of this year, "None of it is true. Fifty thousand U.S. troops remain in Iraq. Combat deaths, including that of an Elm Grove native in late June, continue to occur regularly. And U.S. officials have said they are willing to keep combat troops in Iraq after the Jan. 31 withdrawal 'deadline,' if the government in Baghdad approves. But even if all troops are pulled out, the U.S. military role in Iraq will continue for years, perhaps decades, under an Obama administration plan." And the editorial board becomes one of the first in the country to explain the backup plan if Iraq doesn't agree to extend the US presence in Iraq under a SOFA or similar arrangement. They do so by using the public hearings in which the State Dept testifies. This isn't a secret, why so much of the media has treated it as such is a question to ask. But the editorial board walks you through how the war continues. Chris Toensing (Foreign Policy In Focus via Antiwar.com) notes that while extension "is a burning political issue" in Iraq, "there's precious little debate in Washington on the date for withdrawal. Even though President Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to leave Iraq, his administration isn't telling Maliki that the troops are decamping come what may." Toensing offers his take on what the US government was hoping for and what Nouri al-Maliki was hoping for back in 2008 (in the final days of the Bush administration) when both signed off on the SOFA:

Washington wagered that Maliki would widen his coalition to embrace enough political opponents that his government would be stable without an American prop. The Iraqi premier gambled that, with U.S. funding and training, his security forces would grow strong enough to defeat his domestic foes by the end of 2011.

Both bets were foolish, but Washinton's was more so. Maliki and his circle have no serious record of concilatory politics, and indeed have played upon and exacerbated the country's sectarian, ethnic, and ideological divides to remain in office. In such partisan maneuvers, they have felt secure in the knowledge that tens of thousands of heavily armed Americans are their formidable first line of defense.

How might an extenions go over within the US? Timothy Monroe Bledsoe writes the Augusta Chronicle to share his thoughts on such an outcome, "Now, the overpaid, underworked and clueless government officials in Washington, D.C., are continuing to force tens of thousands of American Troops into harm's way for absolutely no good reason! It is well past time for our so-called government officials to stop being war-mongers and bring all our troops home to safety and to their families, where they all belong."

However, the US government has a different focus. Al Mada reports that Iraqi government sources confirm US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's visit to Iraq was about extending the presence of US troops in the country. Al Mada reports he was told that at Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's house last Saturday, political blocs signed onto an agreement to provide an answer as to whether or not to request the US military to stay beyond 2011 and to provide that answer within two weeks. MP Ibrahim Rikabi tells the paper that Panetta was most focused on what number of US troops would remain in Iraq and that other concerns included "Iranian extremists in Iraq." The article also references the memorandum between the US and Iraqi governments which Al Mada reported on yesterday -- a working memo which would allow US forces to remain in Iraq through the end of 2016. The World Tribune notes the two week deal but says Nouri has stated it will be August before any request is or is not made.

Of the two-week arrangement, Laith Hammoudi, Roy Gutman and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "Yet Iraq's political impasse appeared no closer to resolution after Panetta met Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and other Iraqi leaders. Over the weekend, during heated, top-level talks that lasted about four hours on Saturday, Maliki was unable to secure the agreement of Ayad Allawi, his key political rival, for a decision on whether to ask the U.S. to keep any of the 46,000 troops still in the country — all of whom are due to depart by Dec. 31 under a security agreement. Instead, the Iraqi leaders agreed only to meet again in two weeks and hold lower level talks in the meantime."

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

He wants to scare you to death

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS RELISHING HIS ROLE AS SCREAM QUEEN IN DRAMA HE'S WRITTEN ENTITLED THE DEFICITS HAVE EYES.

TRYING ON A PINK BRA AND PANTIES AND HIGH HEELS FOR A SCENE WHERE HE RUNS THROUGH THE WOODS CHASED BY THE NATIONAL DEBT, BARRY O WONDERED IF HIS MAN BOOBS WERE SUFFICIENT? "DO I NEED PADDING? WARDROBE! WARDROBE! COULD SOMEBODY GET WARDROBE IN HERE? WHERE'S THE LITTLE STITCH BITCH?"

"HERE I AM!" HOLLERED JAY CARNEY RUSHING FORWARD WITH A MOUTH FULL OF STICK PINS AND CARRYING MAN BOOB PADDING WHICH HE CAREFULLY ARRANGED IN BARRY O'S PINK BRA WHILE BARRY O SPOKE TO THESE REPORTERS.

"IT'S AMAZING HOW EASY IT IS TO SCARE AMERICA," BARRY O DECLARED PUFFING MADLY ON A CIGARETTE. "AND SUDDENLY, THE NEWS CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF ME ALL OVER AGAIN. I'M ON EVERY CHANNEL. IT'S LIKE 2008. I CAN FEEL THE LOVE. OR AT THE LEAST THE LIKE. OR AT LEAST THE APATHY. YEAH, APATHY IS GOING TO CINCH MY RE-ELECTION."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with the Libyan War, on the latest episode of Law and Disorder Radio -- which aired this morning on WBAI this morning and around the country throughout the week -- attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) discussed a number of issues including impeachment. Excerpt.

Michael Smith: Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against Libya is really a perversion of the law. Explain what they did in order to justify not going to Congress.

Michael Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution. That's very clear. And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities, it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in self-defense. So we start from the premise that military actions, whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave him authority. But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked power. He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress. Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a safety trigger. They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going to put in a safety trigger. If you do that, if you engage in hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the 90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all those troops be brought out. So we had a sort of double system. Is that clear, Michael?

Michael Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country is lacking to do anything. Technically what he did is a crime and he can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't think that's going to happen.

Michael Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor. It's true violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could impeach him. But good luck. We've never -- we've never successfully impeached anybody. I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that was the case. Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made it through. Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael? It looks like it's not a really good lever.

At Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton speaks with attorney Bruce Fein about Fein's recent Huffington Post column entitled "President Obama's Political Sepulcher." Excerpt.

Scott Horton: That's his tomb, correct?

Bruce Fein: That is correct, his tombstone.

Scott Horton: And the point being there, the war in Libya, this is the straw that broke the camel's back, you think?

Bruce Fein: Well it's a combination. The war in Libya is the, I think, crossing of the rubicon into unlimited, unilateral, presidential war that has brought all empire's to ruination. It's just the symbol of the inclination of empires to go to war for no reason whatsoever other than to dominate for the sake of domination sort of the juvenile thrill of being the bully on the playground. It's combined with his persistence of our troops in Afghanistan. I'm highly doubtful that our troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year because the country is on the precipice of civil war and sectarian fracturing and it appears that all of our hundreds of billions [dollars] and thousands of soldiers who've died have done so for nothing. I suppose if you want to count success as anything an improvement Saddam Hussein, that's sort of about the lowest threshold of success you could establish. But it's not much above that. And moreover our obligation as a country isn't to make other countries free and democratic, that's for their own people to establish. But as I say, the Libya is a situation where we really have now a president who even to some degree more than Bush and Cheney has engaged in this Orwellian discourse where war is peace and peace is war, words don't mean anything. And [. . .] its high water mark when the president, through his State Dept legal counselor Harold Koh insisted we have no hostilities against Libya and we don't have any troops on the ground and our pilots are not in immenent danger which I have pointed out, Scott, means that if in lieu of those predator drones we launched ICBMs with nuclear warhead from the United States to incenerate every living thing in Libya, it wouldn't be hostilities under President Obama and Harold Koh's definition of what constitutes hostilities for purpose of the War Power [Resolution].

Turning to the never-ending Iraq War which claimed another US life over the weekend. Reuters reports 1 US soldier was killed in southern Iraq Sunday. Press TV notes that today's death brings to 3 the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq so far this month.

In some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes 2 Iraqi soldiers were killed at a Mousl checkpoint, 1 more was killed at another Mosul checkpoint (and two were left injured), a Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing left eleven people injured, at least six rockets hit the Green Zone, a Baghdad sticky bombing injured one Sahwa and "the bodies of a Sunni cleric and his brother who were kidnapped ten days ago" were discovered in Rutba. They would appear to be referring to the Iman and his brother that Al Sabbah reported were kidnapped in Anbar July 1st.

Hossam Acommok and Ines Tariq (Al Mada) report that there is a confidential memo on the "semi-agreement" between the White House and Nouri al-Maliki that would keep US forces present in Iraq until 2016. The memo outlines many things including that the US will paying 1,000 dinars for every consulate, embassy, base, etc it has in Iraq. The memo notes certain things -- such as land use -- end December 31, 2016 but -- pay attention all you bad 'reporters' in November 2008 -- it can be extended with the approval of both parties. Just like the SOFA could. Yesterday Al Mada reported on Jalal Talabani's Saturday statements that the government of Iraq would have an answer in two weeks about where they stood on withdrawal. However, AFP spoke with Ali Mussawi (Nouri's "media advisor") yesterday and he stated, "I believe that political leaders will not reach an agreement during the two-week deadline." Alsumaria TV notes, "Ahrar Bloc MP Rafea Abdul Jabbar expects on the other hand from the Iraqi government to sign understanding memorandums with the United States in order to extend the term of US Forces in Iraq without referring to the Parliament, he said."

And what does Moqtada al-Sadr and his bloc say?

That is actually probably the biggest news of the week in Iraq, Al Mada reported Moqtada al-Sadr posted a statement to his website announcing that he will not be reactivating the Mahdi militia even should the US extend its occupation beyond 2011. Why?

Well he calls it "growing evil within the ranks." Apparently, there's a cancer on his thuggery. He claims, in his statement, "grief, pain and sorrow" over the current make up of the Mahdi and people claiming to be in. Goodness, if you left Iraq in 2007 and the Mehdi continued without you, if you set up house in Iran all that time and the Medhi lived without you, you ever think maybe that they could get along just fine without your 'leadership'?

That may be the lesson Moqtada's learned. A lot of people pinned their hopes on Moqtada. Consider them the kind-of-against-the-Iraq-War Nation magazine writers. (They know who they are.) They didn't need to challenge Barack because Moqtada was going to ensure the SOFA was followed. So they could just stay silent as the cry of "End the war now!" became "End the war in three years." They and so many like them hid behind A Thug Named Moqtada. And they whored for him. They stayed silent as his thugs carried out an assualt on Iraq's LGBT community. They propped him up like he was a saint. Because as long as Moqtada said no-to-continued-war, they didn't have to.

Oh, those little cowards.

And they're not just cowards, they're stupid cowards. Moqtada's announcement isn't a shocker. This is a pattern with Moqtada. We've gone over this before, let's do so again by dropping back to when the Status Of Forces Agreement was being discussed in Iraq. From Mary Beth Sheridan's "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" (Washington Post):

Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush.
The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement.
The Sadrists do not appear to have the strength to derail the bilateral accord, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. The group has only 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament. Friday's protest drew thousands of people but was smaller than a massive demonstration held by Sadr loyalists in the same central Baghdad plaza in 2005.

And this is from Stephen Farrell's "Protests in Baghdad on U.S. Pact" (New York Times):

In Firdos Square, protesters sat in rows of 50 stretching back more than half a mile. They filled Sadoun Street, beside the Palestine Hotel and in front of the colonnaded traffic circle where five years ago American troops pulled down the dictator's statue in scenes televised around the world.
While the rally was billed as a cross-community effort, to be attended by Shiite and Sunni clerics, the vast majority of those in attendance were Sadrists. Many had come from Mr. Sadr's stronghold of Sadr City, and the chants the crowd took up were "Moktada, Moktada," "No, no to America," and "No, no to the agreement."
Sadrist officials said they opposed the security agreement because they did not believe assurances that the Americans would ever leave. They depicted the pact as a successor to colonial-era treaties with Western powers in the last century that, they said, had "sold the Arab and the Muslim lands into occupation."

And what happened? Despite the protests, days later the SOFA would pass Parliament. If Moqtada had the power so many are convinced he had, the SOFA never would have gone through. And, in 2008, Moqtada was a lot more influential. Moqtada loves to boast.

This year, while the MSM was pimping his power, we have regularly and repeatedly noted that Moqtada's 'power' has been drastically weakened. We noted that was the conclusion of US, French, British and two neighboring (neighboring Iraq) countries. We noted that he wasn't able to turn out millions or even 10% of the Baghdad population in a protest. This is the April 23rd protest. 2.5 million supporters in the Sadr City section of Baghdad alone and the turn out for that Baghdad protest? "Hundreds."

He followed that with a 'protest' that was a march through Sadr City by his militia -- May 26th, 2011. What were they? 15,000? That's generous. Very generous. The press was even more generous. As the march went through Sadr City, many inhabitans stepped out of the front doors of their homes to take a look and the press was oh-so-very-happy to count those observers as participants. The press counted those alleged 70,000 observers as "participants." They weren't. And even in Sadr City -- home of 2.5 million -- not many were interested in what was marching through their own neighborhood.

Though the press was out-to-lunch, Moqtada wasn't. That's why he organized the march to begin with, to prolong the illusion that he still had a firm grip on power. It would appear he needs to regroup.

CNN files a report they headline "Radical Iraqi cleric threatens to revive brigade to attack U.S. troops" and spend two paragraphs on a maybe as opposed to what's definite in the statement Moqtada posted. Here are paragraphs three and four from Mohammed Tawfeeq's report:

On Sunday, in a statement posted on his official website, al-Sadr said he would not reactivate his Mehdi Army in full, even if U.S. forces remained in the Middle Eastern nation into 2012. He cited a spike in corruption and crimes perpetrated recently by people claiming to be members of his movement for this decision.
But the Shiite cleric, who is based in Najaf, about 100 kilometers south of Baghdad, did not rule out calling again on members of the so-called Promised Day Brigade, a small group of hand-picked fighters dedicated to attacking U.S. and coalition troops.

A "small group." Small groups being all that Moqtada can count on these days. He didn't rule it out in his statement. Nor did he say he would. He did say, flat out, that the Mahdi militia would not be re-activated but somehow that's not the lede for CNN.

"Hard at work at not working"
"THIS JUST IN! MINI-VACATION!"

Cedric's Big Mix