He was trying to be Madonna

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS IN THE MIDST OF AN INTERNATIONAL FLAP AGAIN.  NOT SINCE HE INSULTED THE POLES DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE'S AN IDIOT WHO DOESN'T KNOW WWII HISTORY,  HAS BARRY O SO ENRAGED ANOTHER NATION.


BARRY O WAS PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE PHONE WITH THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT WHILE HE HELD A BAT.  HE WAS SPEAKING TO PRIME MINISTER RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN ABOUT EVENTS IN SYRIA.


AND NOW THE TURKS ARE OUTRAGED BY THE INSULT THE PHOTO CONVEYS.




ATTEMPTING TO BACK PEDDLE AND SPIN, WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT THE BAT'S USAGE WASN'T "AGGRESSIVE IN THE LEAST.  NO.  SEE, BARRY O WAS TRYING TO SHOW RESPECT FOR ERDOGAN AND HE WAS IMAGINING THE BAT WAS ERDOGAN'S PENIS.  LATER, IF YOU LOOKED AT ALL THE PHOTOS, YOU WOULD SEE THAT HE ATTEMPTS TO SWALLOW THE BASEBALL BAT.  JUST LIKE MADONNA WITH THE BOTTLE IN TRUTH OR DARE!"




FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In Iraq, Political Stalemate II continues.  Richard Weitz (World Politics Review) offers a strong overview:

 

 

A power-sharing agreement brokered in November 2010 at Erbil among Iraq's key political actors was meant to establish a balanced coalition government, in which key executive branch posts were to be distributed among the main parties in rough proportion to their electoral strength. A newly created National Council for Strategic Policy was also meant to broaden representation in policymaking beyond the cabinet. The resulting checks and balances, it was thought, would prevent the government from adopting extreme positions by requiring compromise policies acceptable to all the major stakeholders. 
Since then, however, Maliki's critics claim he has ignored the Erbil agreement, instead accruing excessive power, bypassing the Iraqi constitution and bringing under his personal control the country's other political institutions, including the judiciary, federal agencies and the nominally independent election and integrity commissions and central bank.
He has also placed many key national security posts in the hands of his supporters, appointing many senior police, military and intelligence officers without parliament's approval, while seeming to exercise undue influence on their activities. The judgments of the supposedly neutral Constitutional Court also consistently favor the government.
Furthermore, Maliki and his allies have blocked the creation of the aforementioned strategic council in parliament and refused to hold referenda in governorates whose provincial councils were seeking to become federal regions to increase their autonomy from Baghdad.

 

Again, it's a very strong overview.  (My own personal favorite observation?  "Finally, to reassure his critics, he has sometimes stated that he may not run for a third term in national elections scheduled for 2014.")  The thing about Nouri is that once he unleashes the crazy, he can't reel it back in, he can't bottle it up.  Which explains the latest development in the Baghdad-based government's attempt to be a 'good neighbor.'  Barry Malone (Reuters) reports, "Iraq made a formal protest to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Firday after the Turkish foreign minister made a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region."

 

Huh?  Who knew Iraq had it's own Area 51, off-limits to all.  But, wait, it's Kirkuk. A city in the province of Kirkuk, where an estimated 388,000 people live.  And it's not a gated community.  People travel in and out of Kirkuk freely.  But let a Turkish official touring northern Iraq visit the city and Nouri's uncapping the crazy. 

 

 

The backstory: Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived in Erbil on Wednesday and continued his visit on Thursday by visiting various parts of the KRG and, most 'controversially' for Baghdad, Kirkuk.  Kirkuk is a disputed region with both the KRG and Baghdad claiming it.  (How to solve the issue?  Article 140 of the Constitution explains it.  But that census and referendum was supposed to be instituted by the end of 2007, per the Constitution, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to do so and continues to refuse to do so.) 

 

And since it's been months since Nouri created the May 24th international incident -- where 4 Russian bikers were arrested and tortured by Nouri's forces -- he was apparently fearful that someone might mistake him for rational or even competent.  Nouri need not worry.  Kitabat noted this morning that Nouri's Baghdad government continues to complain and carp about the visit.  Marwan Ibrahim (Middle East Online) reports:

Davutolgu visited leaders of Kirkuk's Turkmen community, with which Ankara has long had close ties, as well as religious and historical sites including the city's Ottoman cemetery.

Turkmen Front head Arshad al-Salehi said: "Turkmen should work to enhance relations with Turkey, and Shiites with Iran, and Sunnis with Gulf countries."

The front's deputy leader, Ali Hashem Mukhtar Oglu, said Davutoglu was the highest-ranking Turkish official to visit the city in decades.

Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes this year.

In July, Iraq warned Ankara against "any violations" of its territory and airspace, and instructed the foreign ministry to register a complaint at the UN Security Council, after Turkish jets bombed Kurdish rebels in Kurdistan.

A few days earlier, Iraq called on Turkey to stop accepting "illegal" transfers of crude oil from Kurdistan, which an official from the region said had begun earlier in the month.

 

Sapa-AFP note that in the meeting between the Turkish ambassador to Iraq and the Iraqi government, it was conveyed to Iraq that "Turkey has no secret agenda."  Nouri's paranoia being what it is, that reassurance most likely meant very little. 

 

Nouri unleashed the dogs.  Al Mada reports that today the Ministry of Health announced that there have been seven suicides -- all under 16-years-old -- as a result of a Turkish soap opera.   Also today State of Law's Abdul Salam al-Maliki is stomping his feet.  All Iraq News reports that he is demanding that the Arab League condemn the visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister and that the Arab League call the visit a breach of Iraq's sovereignty.  The KRG should actually pay Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law political slate a monthly fee.  These little tantrums by State of Law are like a mini-advertisement: "Come to the Kurdistan where adults are in charge."  You have to wonder if Nouri gets how stupid his slate makes Iraq look?  On the world stage, State of Law is a joke.  al-Monitor notes, "According to Rudaw News Agency, parliamentarian Abdulhadi el Hassan from Maliki's party said: 'Turkey is blatantly interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. The Turkish embassy should be closed down. We have the right to detain Davutoglu'."

 

KUNA reports, "Turkey's foreign ministry Friday summoned Iraqi Ambassador in Ankara to protest against Iraqi criticism over Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu's visit to Kirkuk."   Alsumaria notes that Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections) has called on Nouri's government to lower the rhetoric and stop escalating the situation.  Hurriyet Daily News reports Davutoglu met today with Ayad Allawi (head of Iraqiya).

 

 

Is it any wonder that the KRG is so much more attractive to the international business community?  After all, they don't have to deal with Crazy Nouri in the KRG.  Daniel Graeber (Oil Price) reviews recent deals with the KRG that irk Baghdad:

 

Iraq, more than seven years after the first post-Saddam government was voted in, still lacks effective legislation to govern the oil sector. The central government in Baghdad considers unilateral oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government illegal. U.S. supermajors Chevron [CVX  111.12    1.87  (+1.71%)   ] and Exxon Mobil [XOM  87.55    1.67  (+1.94%)   ] were blacklisted by Baghdad for making deals with Kurdish authorities. In April, the Kurdish government retaliated by blocking oil exports but has since sent some shipments over the border to Turkey. Despite the political infighting, French majors Total and Marathon Oil locked step in the Kurdish north. Total, in a statement, said it was looking for "new opportunities" in Iraq. (More: Investing Lessons in One of the World's Most Volatile Sectors)

That move brought additional fire from Baghdad. A spokesman for the energy ministry said the central government would "punish" companies that made deals without Baghdad's consent, warning Total it could face "severe consequences" for its actions.

 

 

Maybe it was the Kurds announcing a few days ago that they had no problem with the US making efforts to assist Iraq with its ongoing political crisis but Nouri's government lately has made clear that they're not pleased with either the US or the KRG.  Al Mada reports that insiders in Nouri's Cabinet are stating that the rebuffing by the Interior Ministry on police training by the US is only the first step and that they are/will be making it clear that the government has little desire to work with or have a relationship with the US government.  A quote from the article: "Iraq is capable of moving forward without the United States and is no longer needs its assistance in either construction or development."  Apparently, yesterday's phone call with US Vice President Joe Biden did not go as well as Nouri would have liked.

 

 

Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports that a Dhuluiyah roadside bombing has claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and left four more injured while a Baquba checkpoint was attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 police officers with two more left injured.  In addition to those two incidents today, KUNA reports that late last night there was an attack in al-Rutba in which 2 police officers were killed and two more injured by assailants (three of which were injured in the battle).  Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports that "three drive-by shootings in Baghdad" today resulted in the deaths of 3 Iraqi soldiers and 2 police officers with five soldiers and six police officers left injured.   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes, "The unrest coincides with an emerging political crisis, with Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political blocs increasingly at odds in the fractious legislature. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is Shiite, has struggled to forge a power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security."

 

Violence includes what has been done to the country.  On Shihab Rattansi's Inside Story Americas (Al Jazeera), ex-US Marine Ross Caputi, weapons researcher Dai Williams and Raed Jarrar joined Rattansi for a roundtable on whether the United States caused the vast increase in birth defects in Falluja after the November 2004 assault on that city.

 

Raed Jarrar: The second attack on Falluja happened in 2004 and this was the years where the US actuallly used very heavy military weapons to attack the entire country.  I was in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and went around the country before the attack on Falluja and after documenting the US use of depleted uranium.  I think Iraqis were not very familiar with the dangers of depleted uranium.  I documented many cases of kids playing inside tanks that were by DU bullets.

 

Shihab Rattansi: Now, of course, the US has denied using DU in the Iraq War -- in the second Iraq War at least.

 

Raed Jarrar: I mean, in many cases, it is very much documented. They denied it in the first war and then after that it was documented.  And in the second war, I think there are so much documentation --

 

Shihab Rattansi: Is the documentation of DU or simply elevated radiation?

 

Raed Jarrar:  Both. So I've found -- I've personally found documented many DU bullets and DU bullet entry points into tanks and [. . .] of course, elevated radiation.  The DU radiation is very limited so it's usually around a foot from where the DU bullet punctured the tank.  And the radiation there was between 2,000 and 10,000 percent

 

Shihab Rattansi:  We'll get back to that discussion in a moment because I think there might be a discussion about what's -- if there is uranium being used, if it is indeed depleted uranium.  And we'll get back to that later on.  But as far as that second assault on Falluja occurred, I mean just remind us what happened.  There was basically an evacuation order given.

Raed Jarrar: So there was another first attack on Falluja that failed [April 2004].  And there was another attempt to go in.  And they gave evacuation orders to many Iraqi civilians, many people, hundreds of thousands, left the city and everyone knew that the entire town would be destroyed.  Now, of course, the promise was at that time that the US will go get rid of all of the bad guys and rebuild the city.  Now, of course, that did not happen.  We saw a total destruction of Falluja and the use of so many unconventional weapons.  But then after that no reconstruction was --

 

Shihab Rattansi: How many people were behind during that assualt?

 

Raed Jarrar: No one knows the exact numbers because it wasn't documented.  But there were at least tens of thousands of left behind.

 

And there was some 'documentation.'  The New York Times' Dexter Filkins won a little prize for his 'documentation.'  I wasn't aware there was a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil prize for journalism but then again the profession's in shambles these days.  So Dexy's prize winning feature took many, many days to appear in print.  Apparently the US military vetting Dexy's copy didn't feel any pressing deadline.  You know what might be worst than a Go-Go Boy in the Green Zone (whose antics ended there ended his marriage)?  The idiots like Tom Hayden and Terry Gross who fawn over the Look The Other Way When War Crimes Go Down Boy.  Click here to check out the photo of Falluja by Jahi Chikwendiu (Washington Post).  It kicks off a Falluja photo essay.

 

 

 

 

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot" "Nouri continues attack on Turkey and rebuffs DC" "A break in the summer heat?" "Easy Pita Pizza in the Kitchen" "Boycott Hyatt and other labor issues" "The post office" "Song Travels with Michael Feinstein" "7 men, 1 woman" "4 men, 2 women" "mars and total recall" "when 2 whores meet" "Iraq and Cheyenne" "Science and a great NPR show" "Rickie Lee Jones & Tori Amos" "Syria" "Idiots of the Week: Lambykins and Mutten" "And the Fed, like the White House, does nothing" "Midnight in Paris" "All the lies" "Making Dennis the Menace" "Are these real campaigns?" "Idiot of the week or century?" "Andy Stern and other disappointments" "THIS JUST IN! HARRY THE FISH WIFE!" "Harry needs a dish and some meow-meow mix"

Harry needs a dish and some meow-meow mix

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS A LITTLE BITCH BOI AND, AS SUCH, HE CAN'T HELP BUT BRING OUT THE BITCH IN OTHERS.

CASE IN POINT, HARRY REID WHO HAS DECIDED THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, HE WANTS TO BE A FISH WIFE, A GOSSIPY SHREW WHO GOES AROUND REPEATING FALSEHOODS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, REID EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "IT'S SO MUCH FUN TO BE CATTY.  I WISH I HAD DISCOVERED THIS YEARS AGO.  NOW, IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME, THAT MAN IN THE WINDOW OVER THERE LOOKS LIKE AN IDIOT AND THOSE DOUBLE CHINS!  I NEED TO GO INSULT HIM."

WITH THAT, HARRY REID HURRIED OFF BEFORE THESE REPORTERS COULD INFORM HIM THAT WASN'T A WINDOW, IT WAS A MIRROR ON THE WALL AND HE'D BEEN LOOKING AT HIS OWN REFLECTION.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

With the non-stop wars of the last years, there are a large number of veterans in the US population.  Some of them would like to start their own businesses.  Gordon Block (Watertown Daily Times) reports on "soldiers and veterans" who turned out for a seminar on that topic that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was behind.  Those attending were able to ineract with "Empire State Development; the Departments of State, Labor, and Taxation and Finance; the state Liquor Authority and the Workers' Compensation Board." Governor Cuomo's Deputy Secretary for Civil Rights, Alphonso B. David, explains, "We want them to understand there are these resources."  This week the Deputy Administrator of the US Small Business Administration Marie C. Johns explored the topic at The Huffington Post and noted, "In fact, over nine percent of veterans start or purchase a business once they return home.  And the ripple effect of their entrepreneurial spirit is evident in the rate of small business ownership across the nation.  Currently, there are over two million veteran entrepreneurs employing close to six million people across the nation."

 

Veteran businesses, Congress was told today, that apply for to be recognized as such by the VA suffer from a 60% initial rejection rate and there is a 40% rejection rate for those who apply a second time. The VA's Leney stated that the VA believed, this year alone, 59 businesses had fraudulently applied for veteran status and that they had referred those 59 to the Office of Inspector General.  This is more than double the 2011 numbers (25 referred) and 2012 is not yet over.

 

 

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman: Everyone here knows about the problems VA has had implementing the small business provisions  of a series of public laws beginning Public Law 109-461 and we'll hear more about it today, I'm sure.  While addressing those continuing issues is important, especially those that may include criminal activity, the past is not my focus today.  I want to know how and -- equally important -- when VA will put in place the systems and the policies that will shorten the time, decrease the level of effort needed to pass muster to lower the costs and finally create a community of veteran owned businesses that is reasonably free from unqualified companies.  This is not just a VA task.  There are issues we in Congress need to deal with as well.

 

"We have patiently waited for signs of progress following the installation of a new Executive Director of Smll and Veteran Business Programs at the VA," declared Chair Bill Johnson this morning.  "And while some improvements have  been made, unfortunately the goals established nearly a year ago have yet to be achieved.  This Committee has an oversight responsibility to the American people to ensure that tax dollars administered by the VA are going to legitimate, qualified, veteran owned businesses.  I am hopeful that today's hearing will encourage and assist the VA in reaching their goals of improving the CVE [Center for Veterans Enterprise]  once and for all."

 

Stutzman and Johnson were co-chairing a joint hearing of two House Veterans Affairs subcommittees -- the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (Johnson) and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation (Stutzman). 

 

The first panel was the Executive Director of VA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Thomas Leney.  That's what we're emphasizing today because I want it on the record here that the Congress believes the VA is not in compliance with the law.  In addition, we're going to note the most puzzling and troubling moment of the hearing.  This also took place on the first panel.  If you're a veteran wanting to start a small business, you may need money.  One way to get money for your business is to bring in investors.  But while, in the real world, doing that will not penalize you, in the faux world of VA classifications, it turns out many veteran owned businesses are not getting recognized as such -- which can mean that they are not allowed to bid for VA contracts.  VA is operating under a defintion of ownership and control that is unique to the world of VA and clearly puzzled the members of Subcommittees -- Democrats and Republicans.

 

First up, the issue of the law. Excerpt:

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  Mr. Leney,  you heard the quote I read just a little bit before from the Federal District Judge for the District of Columbia.  He said "several of the groups cited by the CVE as a basis for denying the application for inclusion in the VetBiz VIP database are described in such generalized and ambiguous terms that the Court is essentially left to guess as to the precise basis for the agency's decision."  So what steps has the CVE taken to ensure that decisions for appeals are sufficiently reasoned so that,  if the issue does go to court, a judge can properly exercise judicial review.

 

 

Thomas Leney:  Uh -- sir, I find that, uh, judicial concern, uh, troubling --

 

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, I know you find it troubling. And we've got a lot of witnesses to hear from today.  I don't want to -- I don't want to spin our wheels. Have you made any improvements as a result of that District Judge's findings and the input that we've given you from this Committee -- Subcommittee -- to make sure that appeals are sufficiently reasoned to make sure that they can be understood? Has any action been taken?

 

Thomas Leney: Yes, sir. As I mentioned in my oral statement every request for reconsideration receives a legal review from our Office of General Counsel on the basis of are we prepared to defend it in court?

 

Chair Bill Johnson: Have you made any changes to your process to make sure that they are --

 

Thomas Leney: That is the change to the process.  Every one of our requests for  reconsideration receives a legal review.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  Okay. And that wasn't being done prior to --

Thomas Leney:  That was not being done prior.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  Does -- does VA possess the necessary expertice in making determinations of ownership under their current process?

 

Thomas Leney:  Yes, sir.

 

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay.  Does -- VA does not allow for affiliatons whereas because you testified a few minutes ago that because your processes are consistent, your regulations are consistent with SBA regulations if I heard you correct.

 

 

Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.

 

Chair BIll Johnson:  The VA does not allow for affiliatons whereas government-wide rules do allow for affiliatons.  Why is there a difference between SBA and VA's interpretation?

 

Thomas Leney:  Sir, in response to engagement with this Committee, we undertook a review of our regulation with respect to 13 CFR 125 and 13 CFR 124 which are the SBA regulations. We found that not only are our regulations similar, our interpretations are similar as well.  In fact, based on our review to date the SBA regulations routinely reaches similar if not identical decisions as the VA.  We have -- We have undertaken a review of the regulation.  We're doing that in collaboration with the SBA and, in fact, one of the elements, if you compare the two regulations, our regulation is much more detailed than 13 CFR 125.

 

Chair Bill Johnson: What about 13 CFR 121, Mr. Leney, that's also a part of this disccusion that describes the intent of the Congress?  How do you -- how do you involve 13 CFR 121 in your process?

 

Thomas Leney: Sir, the 13 CFR 121 is one of the regulations we are now looking at as part of our review of our regulations. 

 

Chair Bill Johnson: But it's been for a long time and we've suggested that you include it for a long time.  And you're just now looking at it?

 

Thomas Leney:  Sir, our focus -- my focus has been to implement the regulations that the VA utilizes for the verification program.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  But shouldn't the regulation be based on the law, Mr. Leney?

 

Thomas Leney:  The regulation, we believe, is based on the law, sir.

Chair Bill Johnson:  But not if you exclude, uhm, 121.

 

Thomas Leney:  Sir, like I say, the Secretary [of the VA Eric Shinseki] has directed us to review the regulation.  We are doing so in conjunction with the SBA and stakeholders.  I cannot -- I cannot speak to why it was not being done previously.  But it is being done now.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  How long have you been here, Mr. Leney?

 

Thomas Leney:  Sir, I've been here a year.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  And this is not the first time that you've testified before this Subcommittee.

 

Thomas Leney:  This is not the first time. 

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  We've talked about 121 before.

 

Thomas Leney: Yes, sir.

 

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay.  So why are you waiting for the Secretary to tell you to do something that the law clearly requires?

 

Thomas Leney:  Sir, as I stated, my focus has been to implement the regulation that is in place with the VA. That regulation has been long standing and it has been tested.  We are now reviewing that regulation based on an extensive series of stakeholder engagements.  And I'll be happy to come back and report --

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  You'll get a chance  to come back, Mr. Leney, because it's a violation of the law.  121 is part of the process and that's what this Subcommittee demands, it's what the American people demand.  That's why we're losing patience with the process -- because we keep making these suggestions and we keep spinning our wheels and chasing this same rabbit around the corner over and over again.  So I'm sure I'll have more questions but I'm going to go now to Mr. Stutzman for his questions.

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I believe the VA has a fairly robust statistical analysis section.  Is that correct?

 

Thomas Leney:  Sir, I can't speak to that. I don't know.

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman: You don't know that --

 

Thomas Leney:  I don't know the extent of the statistical analysis.

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman:  You do have -- You do have one?

 

Thomas Leney:  I can't speak to that.  I do not know.

 

 

Now let's move over to issues of ownership and control and, again, we're just on the first panel and the one witness, Thomas Leney.

 

 

US House Reps Jerry McNerney and Phil Roe asked about veterans who are turned down despite owning 51% of their company.  They can't get a veterans small business contract if they own 51% because that's not "control."  Roe explained that if you owned 51% of GM stock, you control General Motors.  However, that's not the VA definition.  The VA definition is that the owner must have 100% control.  There can be partners, but they can't have control or even voting rights because, as the VA is interpreting it, even voting rights waters down control.  No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  You said you're going towards lines of clear delineation.  Give us the definition of control.  You ought to be able to do that.  You're the Director of this department. Tell this Subcommittee right now, tell the people that are listening today what is the defintion of control if 51% ownership doesn't qualify.  What is it?

 

 

Thomas Leney: The definition of 100% control is that you can do anything you want with that business, make any decision concerning that business to include selling that business for a dollar and no one else in that business to include other owners -- other minority owners -- can do anything to prevent you from doing so.

 

Chair Bill Johnson: Mr. Leney, do you know of any business in the world that has more than one owner where that defintion would qualify?  Can you name me one business?  One?

 

Thomas Leney: I can name you thousands of businesses

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  Where that definition qualifies?

 

Thomas Leney:  Yes, sir.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  Under a court of law?

 

Thomas Leney:  Yes, sir.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  I'd like to see them.  Would you write them down and submit them to this Committee?

 

Thomas Leney:  Yes, sir.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  I'd like you to do that.  I'd like to see that.

 

Those were among the big moments in the hearing today.  Time and space permitting, we'll note some other moments from the hearing tomorrow.

 

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"5 dead, 8 wounded in attacks so far today"
"Now the administration is concerned about Camp Ash..."
"Vertigo"
"Congressional reporting"
"5 men, 0 women"
"it's a story ..."
"Chick-fil-Over"
"And now we back al Qaeda?"
"Bradley"
"The computer illiterate"
"Marilyn Monroe"
"A tale of two Dannys"
"THIS JUST IN! THE PRECIOUS ISN'T INNOCENT!"
"The Howler Monkeys of the Cult of St. Barack"

The Howler Monkeys of the Cult of St. Barack

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CAN'T HELP BUT BE BANAL AND SELF-OBSESSED (AND HIS STAFF CAN'T STOP PORTRAYING HIM THAT WAY).

HIS STAFF TWITTED FOR THE TWIT THAT HIS WIFE'S BIRTHDAY WAS COMING UP LEADING A PUERTO RICAN OFFICIAL TO REPLY, "WHO CARES?  TAKE HER TO BURGER KING, BUY HER A SUNDAE WITH DOUBLE BANANA, TAKE HER TO YOUR HOMELAND KENYA!"  WHICH HAS LED THE USUAL HOWLER MONKEYS FROM THE CULT OF ST. BARACK TO SCREAM RACISM.


SILLY PUNK ASS BITCHES, THOSE COLONIZED ARE NOT THE RACISTS.  BUY A DAMN CLUE. PEOPLE LIVING IN PUERTO RICO ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.  THEY ARE A COLONIZED PEOPLE.  YOUR OBSESSIVE AND FRIGHTENING LOVE FOR A WAR HAWK IS EMBARRASSING BUT YOUR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIPS OF POWER ARE EVEN MORE SO.





FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  As our veterans so eloquently described in May, prosthetic care is unlike any other care that VA provides and, when we make the mistake of treating it as such, no less than the daily and ongoing functioning and quality of limb of our veterans is at stake.  I was very troubled to hear our veterans voice such strong opposition to the proposed procurement reforms, arguing forcefully that they would lead to substantial delays in care for veterans with amputations and clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with little to no experience in prosthetic care.  In mid-June -- following our hearing -- I sent a letter, along with Ranking Member Michaud, to the Secretary [of VA] requesting that the Department respond to a number of questions and provide certain materials regarding the strategy, plans and criteria used to consider, develop, design, implement and evaluate the proposed reforms and the pilot programs that preceded them.  Our goal was to understand the analysis VA employed to develop the reforms and what was behind the decision that this was the best idea for our veterans, especially those who have experienced loss of life as a result of service to our country.  Sadly, the Department's response -- which came a week after the deadline requested in our letter -- did not provide the information or the level of detail we ased for and did nothing to assure me that the plan would be effective or that our veterans concers were unfounded.

 

When the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health's Chair Buerkle and Ranking Member Mike Michaud are blown off -- and the Veteran Affairs Dept did blow them off -- it's not just insulting to Congress.  It's also an insult to veterans.  Buerkle and Michaud aren't looking for pen pals.  They're busy and have a great deal to do.  Their staff is very busy.  So when they're asking about something, when they're trying to provide the oversight and ensure that the veterans are being served, they shouldn't be blown off.  The May hearing [May 16th, covered in the May 16th and May 17th snapshots] was rather intense.  That questions would arise from that hearing is not surprising.  It is surprising that the VA would (a) respond late and (b) offer a non-response as a response.

 

 

It's insulting.  And it's very sad that at the conclusion of the hearing, Chair Buerkle had to ask for a copy of the plan that the hearing was about, a plan discussed throughout the hearing, to be submitted to the Subcommittee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  That should have been supplied some time ago.  As she noted, they needed to see that plan to make sure that "the veterans best interests are" being served.

 

 

Yesterday afternoon, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on prosthetics.  They heard from one panel which was the VA's Dr. Robert Petzel with Philip Martovsky, Dr. Lucille Beck and C. Ford Heard (all of the VA).  Two terms to know before we go further.  "VSO" refers to Veterans Service Organizations -- like the VFW, the American Legion, etc. "VISN" is the Veterans Integrated Service Network -- medical care facilities.

 

We're going to emphasize two exchanges early on.  I don't care for Dr. Petzel because I find him to be rude and he tries to run out the clock on his answers.  And he may be wonderful and just come off uncaring.  But as you'll see in the first excerpt, even when he's given the heads up that he's coming off poorly, he doesn't alter his language, he doesn't try to speak in a professional manner that shows care for the veterans.  This is not a new thing with him, this happens every time.

 

 

Committee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: When I hear words like "equipment" and "pharmaceuticals" and then development possibly of a catalog, what you are talking about in those instances are so very different from the testimony we heard in the last hearing regarding the personal nature of a prosthetic.  Amoxicilliin is Amoxicilliin.  A thermometer is a thermometer.  But a prosthetic is unique to that person and to his needs or her needs.  That's my concern with this.  That you -- That this process will become just as any other procurement.  This is a very different process and I think it's what concerns the VSOs and what concerns the veterans.  This is uniquely personal service that we have to give to that veteran and what I'm hearing here when you talk about cataloging purchases concerns me greatly.

 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Uhm, Madam Chairwoman, we absolutely agree with you.  This -- this is the most personal of work VA does -- crafting and fitting a prosthetic limb to an individual that's lost an arm or a leg is a very personal process.  The reforms that we're talking about in terms of uh procurement will not interfere with that process.  The physician orders the prosthetic and that order can be very specific.  The prosthesist  works with the patient to determine where the best place is to purchase that.  As you know, we have 600 contracts in the private sector and most of our procurement not all but most of our procurement occurs in the private sector. In the process of transitioning during the pilot, we audited the orders that the physician had written, we audited the purchasing contract -- the way the contract --  what was actually purchased. We looked at the timeliness between when that order was actually placed and when that order was purchased.  And we looked at the satisfaction -- particularly at the processes in the physicians as to whether or not the needs of that veteran's as they described them were met.  And, In the pilots, we found that that was true -- that that worked very well. The only misjudgment that we made in the pilots was that we expected a higher level of productivity from the contracting officers than we actually found and we had to revise the number of contracting officers that we felt we needed because we felt that the contracts per day that they originally were going to perform was more than was doable  -- that 2.5 is a better example. But otherwise the pilots indicated that things went very well.

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  Can you talk to us about the pilots?  How many pilots were done? How long?  Over what period of time were the pilots conducted?  What areas, which VISINs were included and how you -- What were the various pilots?  How many were there?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, Madam Chairman, we can.  And I'd like to turn to Mr. Matovsky to give you some of the details about the pilots.  Thank you.

 

Philip Matovsky:  Thank you, sir.  We conducted three pilots.  One of them in VISIN 6 -- I'm sorry, VISIN 6 which is  North Carolina, parts of Virginia, parts of West Virginia.  VISN 11 which is Indiana -- I'm going to test my geography here --  parts of Michigan as well.  VISN 20 which is the upper north west on into Alaska. We selected them because they were a uh-uh broad representation -- some of them highly rural, some of them very large and growing. We also ran them from the period of January through the end of March -- for three months.  I believe one of them scooted into April.  We tested two different processes.  One process utilized fully the ECMS our Electronic Contract Management System to place the order and another one in VISN 6.  a slightly different process.  That's the basis for it.  We tested the onboarding of our staff, the training of our staff, the communication, the collaboration with the prosthesis, the prosthetic purchasing agent and then the contracting management agent staff.  As Dr. Petzel just indicated, we did conduct some audits.  For example, we looked at the technical appropriateness of the contracting action but more importantly we looked at what percentage of the time did the contracting officer adhere to the physician's prescription?  100% of the time, the contracting officer adhered to the prescription.

 

Petzel's saying he agrees with the Chair but he makes no attempt to use language that demonstrates he really does agree.  He comes off in hearing after hearing as someone who does not care.  He doesn't want to be informed.  If he's given a chance to correct and impression, he doesn't want to be bothered. 

 

If I have breakfast with you on a regular basis and your name is Charlie but I keep calling you Carl, that says something.  Especially if it's not a joke between us but it's that I've never cared enough to learn your name.  I bring that up for a reason as we jump into the next excerpt.

 

 

 

Ranking Member Mike Michaud: [. . .] We are alarmed by the possible negative impact on patient care including substantial delays in clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with little or no working knowledge of prosthetic care.  And we sent a bipartisan letter to the secretary outlining our concerns and soliciting answers to several of our questions.  And this is the third hearing in an handful of months on this particular issue.  And I remain committed to working with the very dedicated staff at the Dept of Veterans Affairs and the advocacy community to ensure that our veterans are getting the best care that we can deliver in the timely way in this joint-effort and joint-challenges that this Subcommittee stands ready to help. And I read through your testimony and I have a few questions, if I might.  In your testiomny, you said, We believe that many of our reform efforts are acceptable to all concerned parties."  When you say "we believe," have you worked with the VSOs and the veterans to find out whether or not they do take in their -- their concerns?

 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Excuse me, Congressman Michaud, we have.  Since the May hearing, there have been multiple hearings with the -- the service office -- service officers representatives.  I have a breakfast monthly, uhm, with the six of the largest service organizations. We made a presentation and a discussion at that breakfast earlier in July and then just  a day ago on Monday at a conference call with the service organizations.  I'll just quickly [picks up a list in front of him and reads from it] with American Legion, VFW, PPA, the DAV, AmVet and the Blind Veterans of America to discuss [puts list down] what we want to do.  And I can say, that there was no, uh, objection.

 

Really?  Not even from the Blind Veterans of America.  Anybody else questioning that?  I've attended a ton of hearings, I write checks to  many organizations helping the wounded.  But I'm pulling a blank on Blind Veterans of America.  Maybe he meant Blinded Amercian Veterans?  Maybe he didn't. Maybe he meant the Blinded Veterans Association?  Maybe he didn't.   But what he said, reading from his list, was "the Blind Veterans of America."  Most of the time, those who get the name wrong mean Blinded Veterans Association.  Usually Dr. Thomas Zampieri is their spokesperson at Congressional hearings and he just nods when their name is stated wrongly and then, in his testimony, he'll note that they are the Blinded Veterans Association.  My guess is that Petzel meant the Blinded Veterans Association.  It's a shame people can't get the organization's name right in a hearing when they're speaking off the top of their heads.  But Petzel wasn't doing that.  He pulled out a list and read from the list.  And that means he most likely has breakfast with Zampieri and others and wrongly calls them the "Blind Veterans of America."

 

Again, he comes off as someone who just doesn't give a damn.  He meets with this group monthly but he doesn't know their name?  Even when reading off a prepared list, he can't get the name right?  You have to wonder how VA lets stuff that happen.  It's not as if they're image is so sparkling that they can afford to take a few hits from Petzel. 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe is also Dr. Phil Roe, a medical doctor.  He established a few levels in his questioning.  Before a program goes widespread, the VA always swears it's going to work perfect and this person and that person will benefit and there are never any problems with these program that aren't running yet.  Then they start up and, wow, there are problems.  I think Dr. Roe did a very good job establishing what the goals of this transformation are.  If the new standardization is successful, a year from now we should be able to go through the markers Dr. Roe established.

 

 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  Just a couple of very quick questions.  The idea, the reason for doing this was back to what the IG -- is that right, Dr. Petzel, trying to standardize the procedures not only in this but in other areas of contracting that the VA does?  Am I right on that?

.

Dr. Robert Petzel:  We have to standardize procurement.  Not procedures per se.  But to professionalize and standardize the way we, uh, procure material.  We have been, as I said, criticized in the past by important groups of people including some Congressional Committees on our procurement stratigies. And this system-wide effort was to try and professionalize that, yes.

 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe: Okay, so I guess in what the Chairwoman said is correct and there's obviously a prosthesist sitting right to your left.  That's a very individualized therapy and I know as a physician not everything -- I mean, this has to be tailored per person.  I'm sure there's some standardization to it but  it has to be.  And this is not in any way going to slow the process down. Or make that process not as effective or available to our veterans.  Am I correct on that?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Yes, sir, you are correct.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  And so they'll be able to come -- a patient will be able to come into the clinic and that patient won't know the difference.  The time won't make any difference.  There's not going to be a difference in timeliness.  The fact that it costs more than $3000, that's not going to affect the time that that veteran that comes in that needs a limb or needs a prosthetic device is going to get that device?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, sir, that's correct.

 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  Okay, so I think that's extremely important.  And, secondly, once you've catalogued this, is there a way to go outside?  In other words, here's what's in our catalogue.  If the doctor and the prosthetist look at this patient and say, "This is what they need.  It's not right in this little book right here."  Can they get that?  Because this technology is changing faster than cardiac stents are changing.  I mean, it's amazing now the technology in prosthesis.  So as that new technology occurs, it's like these things right here [holds up a cell phone]. As soon as you buy it, it's out of date. And so I see the same thing in prosthesis.  People are doing things -- amazing things -- with this.  So is it once it goes in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue that Sears has, that VA has, can that person get something from the new catalogue? Or something brand new that happened? 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Dr. Roe, absolutely.  One of the nice things about the VA and the procurement regulations  is 8123 which basically says that, uh, with the proper justification, we do not have to do competative buying.  That we can buy specifically what  the doctor has ordered.  So while we may have a catalogue of things that are appropriate in certain kinds of circumstances, the important part in all of this is a doctor writes an order and we will procure for that patient what the doctor has ordered.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  So this is not going to negate new technology as it occurs?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Absolutely not.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  So our veterans can get the cutting edge?  They're not going to get stuck with it's not in the book, you can't have it?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Absolutely not, Congressman.  Just to give an example, there are two relatively new knees that were jointly developed by the VA and the Dept of Defense.  The 2X or X2  and the Genium.  Is that how you pronounce that? Those are absolutely cutting edge techonology for artifical knee.  They're available to any veteran that needs and wants that kind of a prosthesis.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  So it's not going to be -- I mean, it's one thing to have all the colonoscopes looking exactly alike.  That was one of the issues when I first got here.  We had that issue that came up.

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Yes.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  This is a little different than that.  And I guess the other question that I had -- and then I'll have no more -- is that you said that you don't believe that the veterans will be negatively impacted.  Well will they be postively impacted by this?  Will this improve?  I know the VA feels like it will be postively impacted  but will the veteran be positively impacted by this?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Well first of all I think --

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:   Or will they even know the difference? 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: I think first they -- First of all, Congressman, they should not know a difference.  This should be absolutely transparent to them.  But there are things -- a couple of things that I think will happen that will -- even if they don't notice it -- improve prospects.  I expect that once we get this up and running and under our belt that we're going to cut down on the procurement time on average.  That's one.  Number two is that any money that might be saved by getting a fair price -- and that's not our intention but if that should happen -- is money that can be put back into the system to provide more care to more veterans.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  One quick question, when will we know that?  When will you evaluate the system and it's up and running?  A year from now or two years from now?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Congressman, I think there's going to be two different kinds of evaluation.  One is that, in an ongoing fashion, we have to monitor the things that we described before: timeliness; was a physician's order actually followed 100% of the time; was there a level of satisfaction that was appropriate on the part of the patient, the provider, the doctor and the contracting officer; and certain other technical things about the contract?  That's going to be an ongoing process.  When we have been into this for say a year or six months, we will have to look -- and we will look -- at the overall process and see what it has accomplished?  And see if indeed we're doing overall a better job of purchasing than we were doing before?  So there will be two levels of evaluation.

 

Let's stay with the Genium X2 prosthetic knee for a moment.  KSTP has a video report here of Iraq War veteran Luke Schmitz after he got the prosthetic knee.  He stated, "As I'm walking, I don't have to think about it and it's doing everything for me." It has a microprocessor in it.   Orange Coast Prosthetics has photos and videos of the Genium/X2 here and explains, "The Genium hydraulic knee joint system functions through the use of simulated physiologic rule sets run by a miscroprocessor, with auto-adaptive swing and stand phase control predicted by multi-modal proprioceptive input.  The system also provides flexed-knee loading to traverse obstacles and ascend stairs, and dynamic stability control for intuititve standing and transitional gait.  After purchasing the Genium Microprocessor Knee, the practitioner manufactures a custom-fabricated prosthesis incorporating the component."  If you click here, you can view a video report by WHIO on Air Force member Chris Trobaugh who got the Genium and explains, "I can run on it.  And I can hike on it.  Play basketball, golf.  Those are all my goals.  All the things I want to do."

 

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle noted that  she was concerned about the length of the pilot program.  "three months is a very short period of time."  She was concerned that Dr. Lucille Beck had a number of duties already and could not provide sole supervision of this new program.  She made Dr. Petzel go on the record with the fact that a doctor's order would be followed, that a contracting officer (whom she summed up as someone with a Bachelors of Science and a few hours in business courses) would not be allowed to override a doctor's order.  Petzel insisted that was not the case and that the doctor's order would always be followed.  That's something to remember when the first complaints on the program start coming in.  Buerkle was also concerned that the VSOs and veterans were not being properly and/or fully included in the process.  We'll note some of her concluding remarks.

 

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  I think it's very important that we get as many Veterans Services Organizations involved in this discussion, as many perspectives.  You know, what you've mentioned, with all due respect, is great but I think we've got additional Veterans Service Organizations that need to be included in this discussion. And to make sure -- there's nothing more important than the veterans -- and to make sure that when they come home without a limb because they've served this nation, that they have what they need, that they're not dealing with some contracting officer who's got some discretion to give him less of a device than he deserves. So that's all of our concern here that we get our veterans exactly what they need. We heard the last time from veterans.  We're talking about the ability of someone to walk his daughter down the aisle. We're talking about intensely personal prosthetics and intensely personal segment of the care that our veterans need. So there's nothing more important.  And while we are all concerned with regards to cost, that we make sure that our veterans who have served this nation get exactly what they need so that they can return to their maximum potential after they've sacrificed so much for this nation.

 

 

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot" "July's death toll 436" "A propagandist lives, a giant falls" "Ellen" "Tarp" "4 men, 2 women" "dolphins" "Harry Reid is an embarrassment" "What kind of world do we live in?" "New political ad" "Leave the kids alone" "Finally ready to compete" "Another war?" "He still needs help with the basics like connecting" "THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO NEEDS HELP AGAIN!"

He still needs help with the basics like connecting

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

IN 2008, LITTLE BITCH BOY BARRY O COULDN'T STOP TALKING HIS SMACK ABOUT BILL CLINTON AND HE AND HIS SURROGATES REPEATEDLY AND FALSELY ATTACKED BILL. 

FOUR YEARS LATER AND BARRY O'S ON THE ROPES (AGAIN) AND NEEDS BILL CLINTON (AGAIN).

AND BECAUSE BILL'S A MAN, AND NOT A BITCH BOY, HE'LL PUT IT BEHIND HIM AND TRY TO RESCUE THE LITTLE PRECIOUS.

BILL CLINTON'S REACHED A NEW LEVEL OF POPULARITY AT THE SAME TIME THAT BARRY O HAS DISAPPOINTED AMERICANS IN RECORD NUMBERS.

NOW IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO BILL TO TRY TO SEAL THE DEAL -- TO DO WHAT BARRY O COULDN'T BECAUSE BARRY O IS A FAILURE AND IN DANGER OF SEEING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WALK OUT ON HIM THE WAY HIS BIGAMIST DADDY RAN OUT ON MOMMY.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SAID, "WAH!  WAH!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

Emily Alpert (Los Angeles Times) reports, "The United States wasted more than $200 million on an Iraqi police-training program that has little backing on the ground, a new U.S. government audit released Monday found."  The Office of the Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction issued [PDF format warning] "Iraq Police Development Program: Lack Of Iraqi Support And Security Problems Raise Questions About The Continued Viability Of The Program."  From the report:

 

The DoS is wisely reducing the PDP's scope and size in the face of weak Iraq Ministry of Interior (MOI) support.  In July 2012, the number of in-country advisors was reduced to 36: 18 in Baghdad and 18 in Erbil, down from the 85 advisors supporting the program in January.  These latest reductions steemed, in part, from the MOI's rejection of some planned PDP training that was to be the centerpiece of the DoS program.  DoS is currently refocusing its training on five technical areas requested by the MOI.

Along with Iraqi disinterest, security concerns also affected the program. The Embassy's Regional Security Office deemed it unsafe for advisors to travel to Iraqi-controlled facilities in Baghdad on a frequent basis.  Thus, the PDP's advisors conducted more training at the U.S.-controlled Baghdad Police College Annex (BPAX). DoS constructed significant training and housing facilities at BPAX at an estimated cost of about $108 million.  But the DoS has decided to close the facility just months after the PDP started, due to security costs and program revisions.  Although BPAX's facilities will be given to the Iraqis, its closure amounts to a de facto waste of the estimated $108 million to be invested in its construction. In addition, DoS contributed $98 million in PDP funds for constructing the Basrah Consulate so it could be used for PDP training.  It too will not be used because the MOI decided to terminate training at that location. This brings the total amount of de facto waste in the PDP -- that is, funds not meaningfully used for the purpose of their appropriations -- to about $206 million.

 

I wasn't in the mood for the report yesterday.  My attitude was we covered waste in this program  last week (see, for example, "Did the US government have 1.5 billion to throw away" ) and the thing everyone was running with was the Baghdad Police College Annex.  That was the headline in piece for piece after piece.

 

 

Why is the Police College Annex being given to the Iraqi government?

 

It's not difficult to explain and it has been explained.

 

But not in reports yesterday and not in Stuart Bowen's SIGIR report everyone treated as gospel.

 

This was addressed in Congressional hearings.  And the press needs to pay attention to what's going on because the reason the Police College Annex is being handed over?  That can effect other US complexes in Iraq.

 

The June 29th snapshot covered the most recent hearing on this topic (the June 28th House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations hearing).  Jason Chaffetz is the Subcommittee Chair but he'd stepped out of the hearing and US House Rep Black Farenthold was Acting Chair.  As he established in his line of questions (to the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy and Peter Verga and the State Dept's Acting IG Harold Geisel, DoD's Special Deputy IG for Southwest Asia Mickey McDermott, US GAO's Michael Courts and SIGIR's Stuart Bowen Jr.), the US government did not secure a lease for the land.  As Farenthold noted of the Baghdad Police College Annex, "It was intended to house the police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's currently being downsized.  And as a result of the State Dept's failure to secure land use rights, the entire facility is being turned over to the Iraqis at no cost.  The GAO reports Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all of the sites that it operates."  That number has increased by one since that hearing.  From the July 9th snapshot:

 

 

The Kurdistan Regional Government really wasn't the concern there.  But Sunday the KRG announced that Foreign Relations Minister Falah Mustafa met with outgoing US Consul General Alexander Laskaris: "As his last official act in the Region, prior to the meeting Consul General Laskaris signed an agreement regarding the allocation of land for the permanent premises of the US Consulate to be built on. Commenting on this agreement, Mr Laskaris said, 'We thank the government of Kurdistan for allocating this land as part of enhancing our permanent diplomatic presence in Iraq including Baghdad, Basra and Erbil. We look forward to breaking ground and thank the leadership of the KRG for their continuing support and partnership'."

 

 

AP and others yesterday wrongly conflated two separate aspects of the waste.  If they'd bothered to attend Congressional hearings, maybe they wouldn't have.  But the police college was not turned over because people didn't want to participate.  That's not the issue on the turnover. The issue on the turnover is the lack of land-lease agreements.  These should have been in place.  They weren't.

 

Michael Courts testified in the June 28th hearing referenced above that "there's still only 5 of 14 [US facilities in Iraq] for which we actually have explicit title land use agreements or leases."

If you are alarmed by the waste trumpeted yesterday, then you need to pay attention to this topic.  There are now 6 out of 14 facilities with agreements.  (Courts used "explicit agreements" to draw a line between actual agreements and the diplomatic notes Patrick Kennedy was trying to falsely pass off as agreements.)

 

Point being, this could happen again and again.  This story was completely missed because the press is not doing the work required.

 

Article after article yesterday acted alarmed about the handover of the building and the numbers they used in the headlines relied largely on that building.  But no one wants to tell you that this could happen with 8 other US buildings in Iraq if the administration doesn't get land agreements?  No  one wants to be the one to step up to the plate and discuss how the administration failed?

 

In fairness to the reporters, they're covering a SIGIR report (though should they be adding context and a bit more in their so-called reports) and that report makes the same conflation between two separate things.

 

 

Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) speaks to Bowen and even that doesn't allow Rogin to get it right. For all not at the June 28th hearing, that's when the American people learned (or would have if the press attended and reported) that the Baghdad Police College Annex was being handed over to the Iraqi government and that this was happening because of the lack of lease agreement.

 

 

It is not because of security concerns -- as Rogin and Bowen discuss. That was discussed in the hearing as well. That had nothing to do with it. Issues are being confused and it's hard to believe it's not intentional.

 

It is not because of the lack of participation by the Iraqi police.

 

 

It is being handed over because no land agreement was finalized and apparently the White House doesn't think one can be on that area of land. This is important and to have an honest discussion, people need to know the issues at play.

 

Let's deal with another issue because it goes to failure as well and it didn't happen this week or last month, it happened months ago but Rogin -- who I'll assume was trying to be honest on this -- quotes from the SIGIR report, "Without the MOI [Ministry of Interior]'s written commitment to the program, there is little reason to have confidence that the training program currently being planned will be accepted six months from now."

 

 

I'm appalled by that statement.

 

 

I don't disagree with it but it's more than a little late for that statement. This dishonesty's coming from Bowen who I'll assume is under a lot of pressure and is trying to pretty things up. But why is it appalling to read a juts-released SIGIR report stating there's no buy-in by the Ministry of Defense on a police training program?

 

 

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: He [Bowen] has testified before other bodies of Congress, he has released written quarterly reports, as well as specific audits and the message is the same: The program for which the Department of State officially took responsibility on October 1st is nearly a text book case of government procurement -- in this case, foreign assistance -- doesn't buy what we think we're paying for, what we want and why more money will only make the problem worse. Failed procurement is not a problem unique to the State Department. And when it comes to frittering away millions, Foggy Bottom is a rank amateur compared to the Department of Defense. As our colleagues on the Armed Services committees have learned, the best of projects with the most desirable of purposes can go horribly, horribly off-track; and the hardest thing it seems that any bureaucracy can do is pull the plug on a failed initiative. How do we know the Police Development Program is going off-track? Very simple things demonstrate a strong likelihood of waste and mismanagement. Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the program? Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that might be a clue.

 

That's US House Rep Gary Ackerman rightly noting there is no buy-in on the police training program and that's not last week, that's not last month. That's last year. That's from the December 1, 2011 snapshot and the hearing was November 30, 2011. And Stuart Bowen knows these remarks because he was testifying to the hearing.

 

Hundreds of millions have been wasted according to the latest report (billions have been wasted) and the American tax payer is paying for this 'oversight'? This lack of buy-in was established in Congress last year. From that House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia hearing:

 

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the program? Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that might be a clue.

 

The report didn't uncover anything.  It was already known at the end of last year.  This is why Congress was so upset with the stone walling from the administration.  They felt the Iraq goals were not clearly defined, that the -- wait.  We don't need me.  Again, Ackerman, from that hearing, explained the problem was "the program's objectives remain a mushy bowl of vague platitudes" with "no comprehensive and detailed plan for execution."  He referred to the "flashing-red warning light."

 

This is a failure of the administration and the press can't tell you that because they don't know the story they think they're covering.  In part, that's because Bowen's written an embarrassing report that doesn't clearly document.  In part, that's because they didn't do their jobs.

 

Adnan al-Asadi had been questioned by Bowen last year and Bowen was told by Adnan al-Asadi that they didn't need the US to train Iraqi police.  Who is? Adnan al-Asadi? The Acting Minister of Interior.  He's not Minister of Interior.  Nouri never nominated anyone for that position so Parliament never confirmed anyone.  Which means Adnan al-Asadi does what Nouri tells him to do and serves at Nouri's pleasure.  Nouri must have been pleased with al-Asadi's actions. 

 

Though Nouri was supposed to nominate heads for the security ministries in 2010, he never did.  As  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed last week, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."  And while those positions have remained vacant, the violence in Iraq has increased.

 

Today Baghdad was slammed with bombings.  Bushra Juhi (AP) reports two Baghdad car bombings have left 21 dead and fifty-seven injured. RTT News explains, "The first of the bomb explosions occurred outside a restaurant near the headquarters of the police major crime division in Baghdad's central Shiite district of Karrada.  Minutes later, a second car bomb exploded outside a passport office located just a few kilometers away."  Aseel Kami and Kareem Raheem (Reuters) quote police officer Ahmed Hassan, "We were in a patrol when we heard the first explosion.  The second explosion hit another square, and we went to help . . . There was a minibus with six dead passengers inside it."  The two bombings weren't the only violence today.

 

On the day Reporters Without Borders notes 6 countries have seen more than one reporter killed in 2012 so far while 7 -- including Iraq -- have seen at least one killed, Iraq moves up into the first category.  Iraq just moved up to the other category, the more than one.  Bushra Juhi (AP) reports police announced today that last night in Mosul, Ghazwan Anas was shot dead in an attack which left his wife and mother injured. Al Rafidayn reports that unknown assailants stormed Anas' home and shot him dead while leaving his wife injured.  Xinhua adds that it was his wife and their 4-month-old child that were injured in the attack and, "The Iraqi Union of Journalists condemned in a statement the assassination of Anas and called on Nineveh's Operations Command, responsible for the security of the province, to exert every effort to bring the killers to justice. The Union said that more than 280 of its members and media workers have been killed since the start of the US-led war in March 2003." In addition, Bahrain News Agency reports an al-Ramadi roadside bombing has claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured. Basil El-Dabh (Daily News Egypt) observes, "An escalation of violence in Iraq comes with a renewed effort by Iraqi Al-Qaeda forces to energize its presence in the Anbar province. "  AFP adds that "two people were killed and three wounded by a car bomb north of Falluja, a police major in the western province of Anbar and Doctor Assem al-Hamdani of Fallujah Hospital said."


On the topic of violence, Iraq Body Count counts 403 deaths from violence through yesterday.  That does not include the violence noted above.  The month of July ends in a few hours and it has already resulted in more deaths than in the month of June.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"July more deadly for Iraqis than June"

"Heat packing diplomats?"

"That dreadful economy"

"Poland's turn"

"6 men, 0 women"

"science"

"The drought historically"

"Savages"

"Darlene Love"

"Grab Bag and Netflix"

"Nanci Griffith's One Fair Summer Evening"

"The Syrian War, Isaiah, Third"

"THIS JUST IN! HE'S A BITCH!"

"Barry O and his detachable penis"