CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WAS ALREADY FACING CALLS TO FIRE ERIC SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF THE VA. THOSE CALLS HAVE ONLY INCREASED FOLLOWING AN INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, BARRY O RESPONDED, "HOLY CRAP!"
WE, IT TURNED OUT, WERE THE FIRST TO INFORM HIM OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT.
"I HATE READING," BARRY O EXPLAINED, LOOKING AWAY BRIEFLY FROM HIS TABLET AND TMZ VIDEOS.
SIGHING, HE NOTED, "THIS DAY IS ALREADY TURNING OUT TO BE A PIECE OF CRAP. WHY DOES EVERYTHING BAD HAPPEN TO ME?"
THESE REPORTERS SUGGESTED THAT AMERICA'S VETERANS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE SUFFERING MORE THAN HE WAS BUT BARRY O INSISTED, "NO ONE SUFFERS MORE THAN ME. I'M LIKE JESUS OR AT LEAST MICHAEL JACKSON OR JOAN CRAWFORD."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Let's start with lies in the US, lies from a leader and lies from a pack.
The leader? US President Barack Obama. He spoke at West Point today. Can you spot the lie?
Good morning. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. To General Trainor, General Clarke, and the faculty and staff at West Point -- you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution, and excellent mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army. I'd like to acknowledge the Army's leadership -- Secretary McHugh and General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed -- a proud graduate of West Point himself.
To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line. Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point: as commander-in-chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.
I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for many parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you have made. "Deep inside," he wrote, "we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country." Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran. And I would like to ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute - not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families.
It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom -- for you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counter-terrorism efforts were focused on al Qaida's core leadership. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Four and a half years later, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan.
We have removed our troops from Iraq. But they didn't all leave at the end of 2011. And beginning in 2012, Barack sent a troop back in.
At the end of September 2012, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
Some e-mail and say, "That's a story about Syria!" Yes, it is. Do I need to spoon feed you, burp and wipe you? In the middle of the article on Syria, Arango worked in that detail -- an earth shattering one. But the Times either ignores reality or buries it deep in a story.
We included Barack's intro because it makes the lie even more appalling. "Thank you, General Caslen"? It's the same General Caslen who spoke to Arango.-- Robert Caslen. When he was put over West Point, the press had yet another chance to cover the reality of US troops going back into Iraq but they decided to take a pass. Again.
It's always interesting to see what the press will cover. They'll ignore realities about Iraq but they will busy themselves with nonsense and lies. Right now the TV idiots have spoken on one topic but, as usual, they don't know a damn thing they're talking about. Rachel Maddow is a liar. Bob Somerby has documented that repeatedly. I believe Rebecca nailed the liar long before Bob Somerby ever even knew her name. (Rachel's or Rebecca's.) And, of course, it is our own Elaine, committed to peace, who prompted Rachel's on air meltdown. Simply for asking why -- on the Unfiltered blog -- Rachel kept bringing on this vet and that vet but never, ever a veteran for peace, a veteran against the war? Elaine was actually being kind. She honestly thought it was an oversight. It wasn't an oversight. Rachel supported the Iraq War.
Point is, a lot of useless trash has a stink that wafts off them. It's no surprise the stink is back.
Rachel's b.o. spread on her show last night as she attacked Senator Richard Burr for this and that including his blocking Tammy Duckworth's nomination in 2009. She doesn't know why, Rachel says, but she wants you to know he didn't serve in the military.
Rachel didn't serve either.
She forgets to note that.
I don't think you have to have served in the military to advocate for veterans. I didn't serve. That doesn't mean I can't advocate for veterans.
But Rachel has always tried to play manliest man in the room. No one scratched their crotch and spat harder than Sgt Rachel. Hoo-ah!
Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee. He didn't serve in the military so by Rachel's phantom penis logic he shouldn't be on the House Committee.
I believe Bernie Sanders never served in the military. (I don't believe he did and his official bio makes no mention of serving in the military.) He is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee so, by Rachel's phantom penis logic, Bernie shouldn't be Chairing the Senate Committee. The best Chair the Committee has had in the last ten years was Senator Patty Murray and she didn't serve in the military.
And, let's remember, Barack didn't serve in the US military nor did Bill Clinton.
Military service isn't a pre-requisite for serving in Congress or serving on a Committee or the only measure of service.
Having dealt with that nonsense, let's move over to Rachel's claim that Senator Richard Burr attacked veterans. In fairness to Rachel (who never is fair to anyone else), many other outlets have also used that 'frame.' It's inaccurate. Burr issued a statement on Saturday:
To
the Nation’s Veterans,
Over
the course of the last few weeks, there has been a great deal of media
coverage—rightly so—of the still-unfolding story coming out of the Department
of Veterans Affairs regarding secret wait lists and other problems related to
appointment scheduling at VA facilities. Last week, the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs heard from Secretary Shinseki, representatives of some of the
Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), and others.
While a great deal of the media coverage of the hearing has focused on what
Secretary Shinseki said, and didn't say, much less has been seen of the
testimony of the VSOs that testified. I wanted to take a brief moment to
comment on that testimony.
First and foremost, I must recognize and commend the American Legion, National Commander
Dan Dellinger, and the American Legion team for taking a principled stand,
before the hearing and during it, and calling for leadership change at the VA.
It is clear that the Legion has been listening to its membership about the
challenges they face in gaining access to care, and has reached the conclusion
that "enough is enough" and the status quo is indefensible. The
Legion's membership has much to be proud of with the organization they support.
Regrettably, the Legion was alone among the VSOs that testified in taking such a
stand. It became clear at the hearing that most of the other VSOs attending
appear to be more interested in defending the status quo within VA, protecting
their relationships within the agency, and securing their access to the
Secretary and his inner circle. But to what end? What use is their access to
senior VA staff, up to and including the Secretary, if they do not use their
unprecedented access to a Cabinet Secretary to secure timely access to care for
their membership? What hope is there for change within the VA if those closest
to the agency don't use that proximity for the good of veterans across our
country?
I believe the national and local commanders of every VSO have the interests of
their members at heart, and take seriously their commitment to their members
and their organization. Unfortunately, I no longer believe that to be the case
within the Washington executive staff of the VSOs that testified. Last week’s
hearing made it clear to me that the staff has ignored the constant VA problems
expressed by their members and is more interested in their own livelihoods and
Washington connections than they are to the needs of their own members.
I
fear that change within the VA will not be possible unless and until these organizations
also reconsider their
role as well as the nature of their relationship with VA.
Sincerely,
Richard Burr
United
States Senator
That is not an attack on veterans.
It is a critique of VSO leaders.
He can do that.
He felt the VSOs failed and he said so.
He's allowed to do that.
I criticize VSOs re: Congress all the time here.
It's not a slam on veterans.
Forget any specifics of the argument. Are VSOs too polite to Congress?
Yes.
That's only controversial if you want to make it controversial.
IAVA has the best standing right now but is that because it's still a new group? When new leaders emerge in the group will they tone down some of their speaking?
Possibly.
(I don't toss my personal life out there but I'm currently sleeping with a board member of a VSO. That's all the disclosure prying eyes will get. But factor that into what follows if you need to.)
When I cover a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing -- House or Senate -- I don't usually note the VSOs unless it's a legislative hearing. I cover the first panel. The second panel? If it pops up in the second day of coverage, it's because a veteran friend calls and says, "Hey, the point ____ was making was important and you should think about including it."
Burr's correct, the VSOs are too respectful.
(Equally true, though I don't consider myself to be the media, it is true we report on the VA hearings in Congress as many Committee members know. Burr's comment about what got covered in reporting could be a critique of my own work. He could be finding fault with it. If it was and he is, he's correct.)
In the past few years, they've had good relations with Committee members (House and Senate). But it's also true that they're pretty much addressing the same problems over and over, year after year, the VA stalls and blocks or says it will address and doesn't.
If the Senate had a functioning Chair right now -- no, Bernie is not doing a good job -- the Committee would have issued a list of actions they have passed and the VA has still not acted on. That's actually a rather long list.
Rachel wouldn't know about that or anything else that her staff didn't clip for her to read.
Richard Burr?
He can be a real ass.
That's why Kat loves him. He doesn't float along with the crap the way so many do. He is loud, he is critical. He uses those attributes to try to help veterans and their families.
The statement he released was perfectly in keeping with Burr.
I have heard no outcry over the statement from veterans. Yes, VSO leadership is offended. Oh well.
They issued statements denying Burr's assertion. They would have served the membership better by issuing statements which read, "While we strongly disagree with Burr's conclusions we will consider them."
Instead, what you saw was tantrums by VSO leadership at various organizations. And maybe that's a good thing as they threaten they will stop being so nice?
Burr congratulates The American Legion. Let's use them as an example then. When they gave their annual presentation to both veterans committees, I called them and their new leader out. And I have done so with others and will always do so. And, no, my pointing out that issues related to women veterans are being ignored in presentations by VSOs is not me attacking veterans.
Burr offered a critique. He takes the issue very seriously.
If you're bothered by it, you should call him out. You should mock him, ridicule him, do whatever. But why do you have to lie?
Are your reasoning skills so insufficient that you can't make a case without lying? Or is lying just second nature for you at this point?
Do you think the VSOs did a great job in the May 15th hearing? Since none of the yackers attended it, they can't say for sure unless they want to find it online and stream it. But I guess, like attending the actual hearing, streaming it would be too much work for the Rachel Maddows of this country. [We covered the hearing in the Thursday, May 15th snapshot and Friday, May 16th snapshot, Ruth covered it in "Senator Richard Blumenthal says call in the F.B.I.," Kat covered it in "Shinseki needs to be fired," Ava covered it in "Shineski (Ava)" and Wally covered it in "More talk, no action (Wally)."]
If you think that they did, then that's your argument and you should make it. But you're lying when you say that Burr attacked veterans. He did no such thing. He spoke out because he believed the veterans were not being served properly or well by VSO leaders before Congress on May 15th (with the exception of the American Legion).
You could even go to the media critique he offered. But then you'd have to acknowledge whether or not you actually covered that hearing and Rachel Maddow and her ilk did not cover it. We covered it here. Speaking for me, again, Burr's correct. I did not cover the VSOs. I didn't find them to be important in that hearing or worth covering. My first day of coverage was of the first panel (Shinseki) and my second day was acknowledging my judgment call on the Committee itself had been wrong. That resulted from lengthy conversations with five veterans who were at the hearing. And not one of those veterans said to me, "You know there's a point from the second panel that you should note." (The second panel was the VSOs.)
Why lie about Burr?
They're attacking Burr -- Rachel and her pack of liars -- because they want to make it about Burr and not about Eric Shinseki. Eric's the Secretary of the VA. They've done a lot of rescuing of him. The playbook says don't call it a "scandal" and attack Bully Boy Bush.
It is a critique of VSO leaders.
He can do that.
He felt the VSOs failed and he said so.
He's allowed to do that.
I criticize VSOs re: Congress all the time here.
It's not a slam on veterans.
Forget any specifics of the argument. Are VSOs too polite to Congress?
Yes.
That's only controversial if you want to make it controversial.
IAVA has the best standing right now but is that because it's still a new group? When new leaders emerge in the group will they tone down some of their speaking?
Possibly.
(I don't toss my personal life out there but I'm currently sleeping with a board member of a VSO. That's all the disclosure prying eyes will get. But factor that into what follows if you need to.)
When I cover a Veterans Affairs Committee hearing -- House or Senate -- I don't usually note the VSOs unless it's a legislative hearing. I cover the first panel. The second panel? If it pops up in the second day of coverage, it's because a veteran friend calls and says, "Hey, the point ____ was making was important and you should think about including it."
Burr's correct, the VSOs are too respectful.
(Equally true, though I don't consider myself to be the media, it is true we report on the VA hearings in Congress as many Committee members know. Burr's comment about what got covered in reporting could be a critique of my own work. He could be finding fault with it. If it was and he is, he's correct.)
In the past few years, they've had good relations with Committee members (House and Senate). But it's also true that they're pretty much addressing the same problems over and over, year after year, the VA stalls and blocks or says it will address and doesn't.
If the Senate had a functioning Chair right now -- no, Bernie is not doing a good job -- the Committee would have issued a list of actions they have passed and the VA has still not acted on. That's actually a rather long list.
Rachel wouldn't know about that or anything else that her staff didn't clip for her to read.
Richard Burr?
He can be a real ass.
That's why Kat loves him. He doesn't float along with the crap the way so many do. He is loud, he is critical. He uses those attributes to try to help veterans and their families.
The statement he released was perfectly in keeping with Burr.
I have heard no outcry over the statement from veterans. Yes, VSO leadership is offended. Oh well.
They issued statements denying Burr's assertion. They would have served the membership better by issuing statements which read, "While we strongly disagree with Burr's conclusions we will consider them."
Instead, what you saw was tantrums by VSO leadership at various organizations. And maybe that's a good thing as they threaten they will stop being so nice?
Burr congratulates The American Legion. Let's use them as an example then. When they gave their annual presentation to both veterans committees, I called them and their new leader out. And I have done so with others and will always do so. And, no, my pointing out that issues related to women veterans are being ignored in presentations by VSOs is not me attacking veterans.
Burr offered a critique. He takes the issue very seriously.
If you're bothered by it, you should call him out. You should mock him, ridicule him, do whatever. But why do you have to lie?
Are your reasoning skills so insufficient that you can't make a case without lying? Or is lying just second nature for you at this point?
Do you think the VSOs did a great job in the May 15th hearing? Since none of the yackers attended it, they can't say for sure unless they want to find it online and stream it. But I guess, like attending the actual hearing, streaming it would be too much work for the Rachel Maddows of this country. [We covered the hearing in the Thursday, May 15th snapshot and Friday, May 16th snapshot, Ruth covered it in "Senator Richard Blumenthal says call in the F.B.I.," Kat covered it in "Shinseki needs to be fired," Ava covered it in "Shineski (Ava)" and Wally covered it in "More talk, no action (Wally)."]
If you think that they did, then that's your argument and you should make it. But you're lying when you say that Burr attacked veterans. He did no such thing. He spoke out because he believed the veterans were not being served properly or well by VSO leaders before Congress on May 15th (with the exception of the American Legion).
You could even go to the media critique he offered. But then you'd have to acknowledge whether or not you actually covered that hearing and Rachel Maddow and her ilk did not cover it. We covered it here. Speaking for me, again, Burr's correct. I did not cover the VSOs. I didn't find them to be important in that hearing or worth covering. My first day of coverage was of the first panel (Shinseki) and my second day was acknowledging my judgment call on the Committee itself had been wrong. That resulted from lengthy conversations with five veterans who were at the hearing. And not one of those veterans said to me, "You know there's a point from the second panel that you should note." (The second panel was the VSOs.)
Why lie about Burr?
They're attacking Burr -- Rachel and her pack of liars -- because they want to make it about Burr and not about Eric Shinseki. Eric's the Secretary of the VA. They've done a lot of rescuing of him. The playbook says don't call it a "scandal" and attack Bully Boy Bush.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Nechirvan Barzani talks oil and the budget"
"Why War Is Not Inevitable (World Beyond War)"
"X-Men: Days of Future Past just another racist fil..."
"X-Men: Days of Future Past (Betty)"
"ACLU Comment on Wood v. Moss Ruling"
"VA censors who appears before Congress"
"Where is the left? Or I should have just written about music."
"Further thoughts on X-Men Days of Future Past"
"John Kerry, the inside joke"
"bloom off the rose"
"Barack's Drone War"
"Why Ant-Man's film should be shelved"
"ObamaCare -- just more corporate welfare for Big Business"
"NPR's been deleting my comments"
"If Bernie Sanders can't lead, he doesn't need to be a Chair"
"More fakery from the boob"
"THIS JUST IN! NEW POLICY?"
No comments:
Post a Comment