Corruption You Knew Was Coming

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

THE 2012 SQUEAKER THAT WAS THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (51.1% FOR THE DAHLI BAMA, 47.2%  FOR MITT ROMNEY) TOOK PLACE WITH LOTS OF PATS TO BARRY O'S TUSHIE FROM THE MEDIA.

NOW IT TURNS OUT "CORRUPTION YOU KNEW WAS COMING" HAD HELP FROM THE I.R.S.  THE INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ANNOUNCED TWO EMPLOYEES  HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW -- THE HATCH ACT -- AND AN I.R.S. CENTER IN DALLAS, TEXAS APPEARS TO HAVE.

THE HATCH ACT BASICALLY PREVENTS ELECTIONEERING ON THE PART OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  YET THE I.R.S. IN DALLAS APPEARS TO HAVE FEATURED EMPLOYEES AND EQUIPMENT PLASTERED WITH BARRY O. BUMPER STICKERS, T-SHIRTS, WHAT HAVE YOU.

THE TWO EMPLOYEES?

ONE WORKED A CALL CENTER AND CHANTED A RE-ELECTION CHANT FOR BARRY O TO ALL INCOMING CALLS.  NO PUNISHMENT HAS YET BEEN HANDED DOWN FOR THIS.

THE OTHER EMPLOYEE?  SHE HAD BEEN WARNED ABOUT HATCH ACT VIOLATIONS AND THEN WAS CAUGHT IN A RECORDING WITH A CUSTOMER TRASHING REPUBLICANS AND PRAISING DEMOCRATS.  

SHE GOT A 14 DAY SUSPENSION.

LIKE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT.

WHY WASN'T SHE FIRED?

SHE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW?

WHY WASN'T SHE FIRED?

OH, THAT'S RIGHT, THE CORRUPT WHITE HOUSE PREFERS FOR EVERYTHING:



S. 2170, the "Hatch Act Modernization Act of 2012," which modifies penalties under the Hatch Act to provide for a range of possible disciplinary actions in addition to removal for Federal employees; provides explicitly that various provisions of the Hatch Act that are applicable to State and local governments are in the same way applicable to the District of Columbia; and applies the prohibition against State and local employees being candidates for elective office only to employees whose salary is paid completely by Federal loans or grants;




FROM THE TCI WIRE:




US House Rep Jeff Miller:  I had hoped that during this hearing, we would be discussing the concrete changes VA had made -- changes that would show beyond a doubt that VA had placed the care our veterans receive first and that VA's commitment to holding any employee who did not completely embody a commitment to excellence through actions appropriate to the employee's failure accountable. Instead, today we are faced with even with more questions and ever mounting evidence that despite the myriad of patient safety incidents that have occurred at VA medical facilities in recent memory, the status quo is still firmly entrenched at VA.  On Monday -- shortly before this public hearing --  VA provided evidence that a total of twenty-three veterans have died due to delays in care at VA medical facilities.  Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our Committee still don't know when they may have happened beyond VA's stated "most likely between 2010 and 2012."  These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care.  Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable.   Outside of the VA's consult review, this committee has reviewed at least eighteen preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection control practices and a whole host -- a whole host --  of other maladies plaguing the VA health care system nationwide.  Yet, the department's stonewall has only grown higher and non-responsive. There is no excuse for these incidents to have ever occurred.  Congress has met every resource request that VA has made and I guarantee that if the department would have approached this committee at any time to tell us that help was needed to ensure that veterans received the care they required, every possible action would have been taken to ensure that VA could adequately care for our veterans.  This is the third full committee hearing that I have held on patient safety  and I am going to save our VA witnesses a little bit of time this morning by telling them what I don't want to hear.  I don't want to hear the rote repetition of  -- and I quote --  "the department is committed to providing the highest quality care, which our veterans have earned and that they deserve.  When incidents occur, we identify, mitigate, and prevent additional risks.  Prompt reviews prevent similar events in the future and hold those persons accountable."  Another thing I don’t want to hear is -- and, again, I quote from numerous VA statements, including a recent press statement --  "while any adverse incident for a veteran within our care is one too many," preventable deaths represent a small fraction of the veterans who seek care from VA every year.  What our veterans have truly "earned and deserve" is not more platitudes and, yes, one adverse incident is indeed one too many.  Look, we all recognize that no medical system is infallible no matter how high the quality standards might be.  But I think we all also recognize that the VA health care system is unique because it has a unique, special obligation not only to its patients -- the men and women who honorably serve our nation in uniform -- but also to  the hard-working taxpayers of the United States of America.

Miller is the Committee Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  He was speaking at today's hearing on VA accountability.  And about mid-way into the hearing, it got very personal for one member of Congress who teared up during her round of questioning.

US House Rep Jackie Walorski:  I sit here as a freshman lawmaker, so frustrated that there's a bureaucracy that's out of control and if this happened in the civilian world, where negligence was proven time and time again, we would be in the street with signs saying 'shut them down.'  It's an outrage, is what it is. This is an outrage.  And so, I just join the rest of my colleagues here.  This isn't a partisan issue.  This is an American disaster that we have sat here and witnessed -- for me, probably 16 months.  And if I could change your circumstance, I would. I would do it in a heartbeat.  [Sharp intake of breath.] 

Barry Coates: Thank you.

US House Rep Jackie Walorski:  My dad -- [Voice breaking] My dad . . . was a veteran . . . that died of colon cancer.  [Sniffling] This is so personal to me. And as a Committee, I can tell you right now what the VA's going to say when they sit here. They're going to say what the Chairman read in his opening remarks.  They're going to give us long dramatic answers and nothing is going to change unless we in this Congress -- on the House and the Senate side -- decide to stand up and take on one of the biggest issues in this nation -- which is this negligence toward taking care of the people who fight for freedom, fought for liberty and allow us to sit and serve in a place called the US Congress. 


"Teared up" is not mocking Walorski.  And the ". . ." indicates lengthy pauses where she attempted to fight back tears.  I've cried at many of the VA hearings myself, I would not mock anyone for sincerely caring.  I also agree with her remarks about the frustration issue.  I've written of that myself, of how we've been going to these VA hearings since 2006 and nothing gets done.  The VA always has an excuse and the problems today are the same problems the Committees were exploring in 2006.

I was glad for her honest reaction during her time -- it was good to hear a member of the Committee express their frustration.   US House Rep Michael Michaud is the Ranking Member of the Committee. He wasn't at the hearing but this is from Michaud's prepared written remarks, "All too often, members of this Committee hear the same issues raised again and again in reports by agencies such as the Government Accountability Office and the VA’s Office of Inspector General. Findings such as inadequate training, improper oversight, lack of guidance, no accountability, and failing to follow proper procedures already in place, are too common."  Michaud was not present so US House Rep Corrine Brown was acting Ranking Member.



Ranking Member Corrine Brown:  [I]t is unfortunate that we must continually call these hearings to make sure that our nation’s veterans are receiving the care for which they have already paid dearly for on the battlefields and in service to protect the freedoms we all hold most dear.  I find it disturbing that just 2 days before this hearing, the VA has releases findings that its healthcare personnel are not fully trained in the importance of timely consults when treating a veteran. The dictionary defines a consult as the act of seeking information or advice from someone with expertise in a particular area. The system the VA set up to make these consults easier obviously broke down and it is possible that at least 5 veterans died in Florida because the right information was not shared with the right health professionals. I am concerned that in the 5 years after the colonoscopy debacle at the Miami VA, nothing has changed. To refresh your memory, in 2009, staff members at a number of VA facilities noticed improper reprocessing of endoscopes contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions. The VA properly ordered all facilities to Step-Up and get retrained on the procedures.  We want employees to feel free to report questionable issue and procedures without fear of retribution for trying to save lives.


It was a rare moment of coherence for Brown.  And she actually stood with veterans . . . while reading from her prepared remarks.

Then she wanted to insist, at the end of the first panel, that the VA is not broken: "I don't feel like it's broken, I feel like we need to do what we need to do to fix it."  Which would imply a break.

Hey lady, you lady.  Corrine Brown quickly got lost in her Charlene impression as she declared she'd been to "those areas in Florida or Tampa" -- yes, Florida is in Tampa, don't expect logic from Corrine Brown -- "I've been too, or Jacksonville or Gainseville or Lake City.  I mean, I've been to California . . ."

and anywhere I could run
I took the hand of a preacher man 
and we made love in the sun

Poor, Corrine Brown, she's "been to paradise but I've never been to me."

Well, for a few moments she wasn't the biggest joke on the Committee.  We're being real kind and not quoting Loony Corrine Brown telling a man with stage-four cancer that she's got a friend that the hospital released and told him he was as good as dead but, somehow, maybe one of her magic wigs, he's still alive today.  If the story's true, Brown really needs to learn to edit herself and grasp that cancer patients don't need lectures or your hopium.  Loony Corrine Brown.  We're going to need two straight jackets -- one for her wig.


The first panel appearing before the Committee was veteran Barry Coates, The American Legion's Daniel Dellinger (with Edward Lilly).  The second panel was the VA's Dr. Thomas Lynch and Dr. Carolyn Clancy.   The third panel was the Government Accountability Office's Debra Draper, the VA's Assistant Inspector General Dr. John Daigh.


Chair Miller explained, "Mr. Coates waited for almost a year and would have waited even longer had he not actively, persistently insisted on receiving the colonoscopy that he and his doctors knew he needed.  That same colonoscopy revealed that Mr. Coates had stage four colon cancer that had metastasized to his lungs and his liver.  Maybe that is why VA does not want to define accountability in terms of employees who have been fired."  Coates wondered what service members must be thinking as they hear of the VA's 'treatment' of veterans.  He suspected that they wondered if they and their families would suffer similarly when they went from service member to veteran?


Barry Coates:  So something needs to be done and someone needs to be held accountable for it and I understand from other sources that no one's been held accountable for it. And I think someone should be held accountable for it whether it be a director of the [William Jennings Bryan] Dorn VA hospital, whether it be the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs or even the President of the United States. 

Coates would declare that the VA "handed me a death sentence and ruined my quality of life."


Chair Jeff Miller:  Mr. Coates, in the more or less year that it took for you to receive a colonoscopy through the Department of Veterans Affairs, did anybody at any time ever tell you that you could be authorized to receive the procedure that you needed done through a private provider in the community enabling you to get a diagnosis sooner 

Barry Coates:  No, sir.  I never was advised during that time period.  During that time period, I seen, from January of 2011, when I first complained about it, till the day of my colonoscopy which was December the 9th of 2011, I've seen four different doctors that was in the VA system.  One was Rock Hill Clinic Outpatient Dr. Verma -- she was my outpatient clinic doctor I had in Rock Hill, South Carolina.  I moved to the location I live now.  I transferred.  It takes roughly anywhere from four to six months to get transferred to a different location for outpatient care which would have been the Florence clinic.  Upon that, I'd seen Dr. Verma on January, March and I think in May of that same year.  Each time, my problem got worse and she made notes in her comments because I got -- retrieved -- copies of those from the VA and she made note of those "may need colonoscopy" -- never set a consult up for it.  Upon getting transferred to the Florence Clinic in June of 2011, if I remember correctly, Dr. Neumann was my doctor there. And being a new patient, he did a full exam, looked over my information from Dr. Verma prior to treating me and he kind of got upset because she didn't have me on certain prescriptions because of taking pills for pain will cause certain problems and that I should have been on something already from that, from being on those for quite a few years. But he immediately set me up on a consult with a GI surgeon which I didn't never get to an appointment with her until probably either around the eighth month or maybe the ninth month if I remember correctly, Dr. Kim.  And upon seeing her, I seen her twice.  She delayed it another two or three months.  And I went back to her again, around the tenth month.  We didn't have a good communication ability between each other because she kind of made me mad from my first appointment because of things that she could have done then that would have resulted earlier and set a consult up for a colonoscopy if she would have done a couple of other procedures other than a physical exam.  I learned that she could have done a CT exam or a CT scan [. . .] exam which would have found the tumor which was only 5 inches in the area -- in the lower rectum area.  After that appointment with her on the 10th, she set me up for a consult for a colonoscopy to be done -- which I received the appointment in the mail two weeks later and it was actually scheduled for April of the following year -- we're talking six more months out -- and I'd already been in pain for eight months already and suffering because of this.  But I didn't let that stand in front of me, so I called the department that scheduled that appointment and they told me that that's the normal time -- usually around six months -- before you could get a colonoscopy.  There was nothing that she could have done to get it earlier, that only way you could get it done earlier was to request your physician to write the chief GI surgeon or either the gastrologist to get it done sooner.  Or you could call each day to see if anyone dropped off from the appointment schedule.  And I asked her could she write my name down and call me if someone dropped off?  She said she couldn't do that. She called me the next morning at 9:30 and asked me if I could come to an appointment around 2:30 that day which I did.  And that's when I was set up for the colonoscopy to be done at the Fort Jackson military hospital on December the 9th.  So from January to December the 9th was a whole year.

We're going to stop here a second.  'She' can't do that and she did.  She really can't -- we'll go into that in a second.  But she said she couldn't and most likely said that because she didn't want to make a promise she couldn't keep.  She probably receives several calls a week (if not a day) like Coates' call.

It's not possible.

At the time Coates spoke to the woman, he was one person needing a procedure for which there was scheduling required.

Along with Barry Coates, 'she' was facing others wanting to get in sooner.  Let's pretend for just one minute that this was just five people.  'She' doesn't have time to call them and let them know.

I'm not being sarcastic.  'She' has other duties.

But this can be set up automatically and should be.  The VA, for any scheduled procedure, should have an automated system where people waiting for a procedure and willing to take a spot that opens before their own are automatically called and hear, "Hello, veteran.  Tomorrow at 2:00 pm [or whatever time] we now have a cancellation for [whatever procedure].  We will be filling it on a first call first serve basis.  If you are interested in that time slot, please contact us."

Now that alone's going to add a lot of work to 'she' (because it's going to be more than five people calling and she'll have to explain over and over to all but one that the slot is now filled) but it can be done and it can be automated.  Can be and should be. (And if you automated the outgoing call and also automated the first-come-first serve aspect, 'she' wouldn't have to do any additional calls on this.)

Automation also means 'she' doesn't have 140 post-its on her desk that she has to keep track of regarding 'call me if there's a last minute opening.'

The VA needs to automate the system immediately.  These are things that can and should be done and that the VA Secretary should have already started implementing.


US House Rep Julia Brownley: [. . .] Have you had any formal apology from the VA?

Barry Coates:  None. 

"Before I walked up here, I apologized to Mr. Coates," the VA's Lynch wanted to insist.  Yes, yes, you did.  At a Congressional hearing, after Barry Coates had testified -- and testified that no one in the VA had apologized to him, after Coates was done testifying and right before Lynch was about to, he rushed to get in a quick and perfunctory -- we all saw it -- 'apology.'  And to make clear just how insincere it was, Lynch wanted to make his first statement to the Committee, before he started reading from his prepared remarks, "Before I walked up here, I apologized to Mr. Coates."  Give him a gold star -- for insincerity. Coates had stated he did not receive an institutional disclosure (Chair Miller had specifically asked) and to make the 'apology' even more insincere, Lynch wanted to immediately rush into "if he did not receive an institutional disclosure" -- it's not if.  It's testimony to the Committee.


Chair Jeff Miller:  Your recent national consulate delayed review revealed two deaths in Arizona but Committee investigation shows that it appears that it could be much worse than you know.  Or, if you do know that it's worse than what the Committee was told?  So I want to tell you about some information that we have received here in the Committee as it relates to Phoenix.  I've been made aware of internal e-mails from within the VA that suggest that Phoenix VA may have been using an unofficial electronic waiting list where veterans were placed on that unofficial list until an appointment became available.  These lists were supposedly designed to give the appearance that veterans were only waiting for appointments for 24, 25 days or less and they potentially contained thousands of names. In cross-referencing the two lists, it appears there could be as many as 40 veterans whose deaths could be related to delays in care. Were you made aware of any of these unofficial lists in any part of your lookback? 

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Mr. Chairman, I was not.  And Mr. Chairman, I would say that I have tried to work with your Committee, I have visited with your staff.  I was in Atlanta.  I was in Columbia.  I was in Augusta when you made those visits.  I have tried to share the information that we have gained as we are obtaining it.  I know it's not perfect information, sir, but I know that there's a desire on your part to know that information as we obtain it. I am more than willing to meet with your staffers and take their information so that I can use it, sir. If I don't have that information, I can't act on it.

Chair Jeff Miller: So your people had two lists and they even kept it from your knowledge so my question is: Does that make you even internally question the validity of the information being utilized in your lookback or review?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  At the moment, sir, it does not.  But I am open. I am happy to meet with your staffers. I'm happy to look at the data so that we can understand it and see what the issues and the problems are.

Chair Jeff Miller: I want to provide you with a request for a preservation order for all potential evidence at Phoenix.  And I would also ask the Inspector General for health care, Mr. Day, to look into this issue as soon as possible.  I will be putting a letter to you as quickly -- but I want to make this as an official request, on the record, and we are ready to assist by providing our input and any assistance that Dr. Day may need as he goes through.  It's been mentioned a couple of times in here about Dorn being awarded a little over a million dollars -- one-million-point-two or some number like that -- to help in the backlog of fee base colonoscopy.  The money was provided in September of 2011.  I have still not been able to get a solid answer where that money went.  So I hope you'll be able to provide some insight this afternoon.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Mr. Chairman, I know that that information has passed through VHA.  I took the opportunity to listen to the Deputy Secretary's hearing the other day.  I know he has committed to increasing the communication with Congress and with this Committee and I support his efforts and will do what I can to get you the information that you need, sir.

Chair Jeff Miller: So, again, another piece of information the Committee awaits.  I specifically asked for a complete accounting of those dollars when I was at Dorn earlier this year.  On the 22nd of February,  in a Health Committee hearing, Dr. [US House Rep Dan] Benishek asked Dr. [Robert] Petzel to provide a list of circumstances surrounding the removal of six SES employees over the last two years.  Dr. Petzel promised at that hearing that he would provide that information at the end of that week -- this is February 26th.  It's been six weeks since the Committee asked for the information.  We have not received it.  This information was referenced in a Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity that was chaired by Mr. Florez.  And, by the way, Mr. Florez is absent today because he is at the memorial for Fort Hood in Texas.  And the Committee staff has made numerous requests  I would also note that in your -- this statistic was also noted in your written statement for this hearing.  So why is VA keeping this information from the Committee when it was an entirely reasonable request?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Sir, I wish I had an answer for you that you would find acceptable.  I can only repeat that I support the Deputy Secretary's efforts to get you the information in a timely fashion.

Chair Jeff Miller: You know, I have a bill right now, Dr. Lynch, that gives the Secretary additional flexibility to fire SES employees out of the 320,000 employees at the Dept of Veterans Affairs we're only talking about 450 individuals.  The Secretary is pushing back, saying that he has the tools and that he has, in fact, taken the necessary steps.  And we're talking about six people.  And we've been waiting months now to get that information.  And I just -- as the Chairman and the Subcommittee Chairmen and the Ranking Members just sit here wondering why in the world it takes so long?


We could continue but we don't have the space.  Visit the House Veterans Affairs Committee's VA Accountability Watch for more examples.   On veterans issues, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Nick McCormick has a column at Defense One where he advocates for the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans:

The same day we placed American flags on the Mall, we welcomed the introduction of the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act. The bill was introduced by the first Iraq war veteran to serve in the Senate, John Walsh of Montana. In announcing the legislation and the need for new action, Sen. Walsh shared how this issue has personally affected him, including how one of the soldiers he commanded in the Montana National Guard died by suicide when the unit returned home from Iraq.
Sen. Walsh’s bill would extend VA health care for some veterans from 5 to 15 years, review wrongful discharges, and ensure greater collaboration between VA and DoD to ensure a seamless transition of care for our men and women in uniform.

Now, the House needs to introduce a similar bill and more senators from both parties need to support this bill. The biggest request veterans and the American public need to demand from Congress is this: for once, please do not let the stale election-year politics of old stand in the way of enacting necessary reforms that will save lives.   



Yesterday's snapshot covered Secretary of State John Kerry's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.  Wally reported on it in "Learn the Constitution, John Kerry,"  Ruth in "Rand Paul's security concerns re: Benghazi," Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!" and Cedric's "John Kerry knows nothing about money" joint-post noted one aspect and Ava covered the hearing in "John Kerry gets prissy and rude before the Senate (Ava)." (Ava will be back at Trina's site tonight to report on today's House Veterans Affair Committee and tonight Ruth will continue to cover Senator Rand Paul's exchange with Kerry.)



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's War Crimes continue, oil battles continue ..."
"Talk Nation Radio: Betsy Leondar-Wright on Cross-C..."
"Is the Obama Administration telling the American p..."
"US illegal spying included spying on human rights ..."
"One Nation the U.S. Actually Should Liberate (Davi..."
"Repeats"
"revenge - the good"
"What they tell us, what they don't"
"The wrong focus"
"Ed Snowden"
"Iraq and polio"
"No accountability at the VA (Ava)"
"Laughable John Kerry says retirement is the same as death"
"Child marriage"
"Ass Backwards"
"John Kerry knows nothing about money"
"THIS JUST IN! BOTOX KERRY TALKS MONEY!"

John Kerry knows nothing about money

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

BOTOX ADDICT JOHN KERRY TRAIPSED BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE YESTERDAY AND DECLARED:


And I want to thank you for the way this Committee stands up for an active internationalist American foreign policy.  I spent enough time in Congress to know not to call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain.  But when you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, I think it's safe to and if you ad OCO [Overseas Contingeny Operations] it's 50.1 -- I think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget, when it comes to the State Dept and USAID, tax payers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.


NO, THAT'S $46.2 BILLION THAT COULD BE USED TO INCREASE JOBS IN THE U.S., RESTORE ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, FUND SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND MUCH MORE.

INSTEAD, IT'S USED TO FUND WAR PLANNING AND PROPAGANDA.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, KERRY REPLIED, "I'M WINKING AT YOU.  IF MY EYES AREN'T MOVING, IT'S THE BOTOX, BUT INSIDE I'M WINING."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This morning in DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing to discuss the US active duty and reserve forces.  Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Committee.  Senator James Inhofe is the Ranking Member.

Chair Carl Levin:  The Department’s fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes end strength reductions through fiscal year 2017 that would leave the nation with an Active Army of 450,000, or 20 percent less from its wartime high of 569,000; an Army National Guard of 335,000, or 6 percent less than its wartime high of 354,000; and the U.S. Army Reserve at 195,000, or 10 percent less than its high of 205,000. But these end strength numbers assume that the defense budget caps will be increased by $115 billion for fiscal years 2016 through 2019.

Appearing before the Committee were Gen Ray Odierno (Chief of Staff of the Army), Gen Frank Grass (Chief of the National Guard Bureau) and Lt Gen Jeffrey Talley (Chief of the Army and Commanding General of the US Army Reserve Command).

In his opening remarks, Odierno broke from his prepared statement.


Gen Ray Odierno:  Before I start, I just want to let the Committee know as soon as we're done with the hearing, I'll be traveling to Fort Hood to visit with the soldiers, family, commanders, those wounded and will attend the memorial service tomorrow.  Things continue to progress there.  I'm satisfied  that -- with the over all -- as we continue to investigate and look at this -- I'm satisfied that if we had not implemented some of the lessons learned in 2009, the tragedy could have been much worse than it was.  However, we still have much to learn about what happened and why and what we have to do in terms of our mental health screening assessments as well as taking care of our soldiers.  And the Army is committed to  thoroughly understanding what we must do and the actions we must take.  And we look forward to reporting to you what we have found as we continue and conclude our investigations at Fort Hood.


Those were his remarks on last week's Fort Hood shooting.  Eleanor Goldberg (Huffington Post) sums it up,  "On Wednesday afternoon, Ivan Lopez, 34, opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas, killing three and injuring 16 before turning the gun on himself. The violence was particularly disheartening because Fort Hood was the site of the worst mass killing at an American military installation, which left 13 people dead and more than 30 injured in 2009."  Will Weissert and Danica Coto (AP) report, "On Friday, authorities formally identified the dead as 39-year-old Daniel Ferguson, of Mulberry, Fla.; 38-year-old Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez, of Puerto Rico; and 37-year-old Timothy Owens, of Effingham, Ill."

I wasn't at that hearing, a friend who was passed it on.  I was at today's Senate Foreign Relations hearing wasting my time -- or rather the Committee and John Kerry wasting my time.  Secretary of State John Kerry was the only witness appearing before the Committee.  Senator Robert Menendez is the Committee Chair and Bob Corker is the Ranking Member.

The hearing was a joke, a really bad joke.


Kerry denounced Venezuela's government for making 'dangerous choices.'  But Kerry didn't say one damn word about the War Crimes going on in Iraq.

The US government is making dangerous choices -- but in doing so, they're making very clear that they don't give a damn about democracy or -- more important to the world -- they don't give a damn about humanity which is why they installed and propped -- and continue to prop up.

Kerry tried to  boast, "No other nation can give people the confidence to come together and confront some of the most difficult challenges in the same way that we are privileged to do."

They're not giving people that.  Kerry can pretend all he wants but all the US government is demonstrating is what it demonstrated under Bully Boy Bush, a crass disregard for human rights and the law.


Kerry had the nerve to denounce Russia for "contrived" excuses.  Forget the Iraq War -- and the lies the US government -- including Democrats in Congress -- told.   Kerry screamed for war on Syria based on 'gassing' people to death with 'chemical weapons.'  But as Seymour Hersh's "The Red Line and the Rat Line," published by The London Review of Books over the weekend makes clear, Kerry, Barack Obama and others were engaged in propaganda to sell a war.  (Somebody slide the article over to Senator Ben Cardin -- his deep stupidity might be mitigated were he to read Hersh's report.) (For more on Hersh's report see Mike's "Can dickless Robert Parry go to a nursing home already?" and  Elaine's "Sy Hersh" -- also Marcia's "Polio" covered polio in Iraq.)


The State Dept wants approximately one billion for Iraq for the next fiscal year and the hearing was on the budget.  But Kerry didn't want to discuss the big ticket item.  No one did.  Only one senator even said the word "Iraq."

Yet . . .

On the eve of the anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime on April 9, 2003, the U.S. Embassy advises U.S. citizens to restrict movements around Baghdad, including travel through Baghdad International Airport.  U.S. government and Embassy-affiliated personnel are restricting their use of the Baghdad International Airport through April 12.  Beyond this date, American citizens are encouraged to evaluate all travel plans after reviewing the latest Embassy messages.  If you have an emergency, please call the American Citizen Services emergency line at 0760-030-4888 or 0770-443-1286.

The U.S. Embassy recommends that U.S. citizens in all areas of Iraq, including the IZ, maintain a heightened sense of security awareness and take appropriate measures to enhance personal and operational security at this time.  U.S. citizens are advised to keep a low profile; vary days, times, and routes of travel; and exercise caution while driving and entering or exiting vehicles. 

You may recognize the above in bold.  You may think it's the warning the US Embassy in Baghdad issued
 that we noted in yesterday's snapshot.  It's not.  It's the warning that the US Embassy in Baghdad issued today.  It's so dangerous that they have repeated the warning.

But John Kerry didn't care and he didn't care to address Iraq.

Here's his full testimony on Iraq, "We've issued more special immigration visas in Afghanistan -- and in Iraq, incidentally -- than at any previous year."  That was in reply to an Afghanistan question from Senator Jeanne Shaheen.  However, when she asked him about Iraq?

He didn't have a word for it, not even "incidentally."


He did say this.


Secretary John Kerry:  And I want to thank you for the way this Committee stands up for an active internationalist American foreign policy.  I spent enough time in Congress to know not to call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain.  But when you consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the $46.2 billion in this request, I think it's safe to and if you ad OCO [Overseas Contingeny Operations] it's 50.1 -- I think it's safe to say that in the grand scheme of the federal budget, when it comes to the State Dept and USAID, tax payers are getting an extraordinary return on their investment.


Pretty big words in many ways but especially when Friday brought the news of the State Dept being unable to account for $6 billion.  If you're late to the topic, refer to the report by Karen DeYoung (Washington Post).


Only one senator wanted to raise the issue of the $6 billion missing dollars.


Senator Jeanne Shaheen: On a note that is not so positive, last week it came to light that the State Dept's Office of Inspector General  has discovered that over the past six years contracts worth more than 6 billion dollars have lacked complete and -- in some cases -- no records and that many of the files for contracts supporting our US mission in Iraq couldn't be located.  So I was wondering if you could tell us what actions the State Dept is taking in response to the concerns that have been raised by the Inspector Generals?

Secretary John Kerry: Well let me begin by saying that the, uh, we hadn't had an Inspector General at the State Dept for [stops speaking to turn around and ask his staff a question] . . .  What?  [Continues testimony] for three-and-a-half years or more there was no Inspector General.

Pause.

The stupidity.

There's no  excuse for it.

There wasn't an inspector general for Barack's entire first term.

After January 2008, there was no State Dept IG in Bully Boy's Bush's final year of occupying the Oval Office.  Since January 2008 until September of 2013, the office was empty.

Now I might not want to own up to that before Congress too if I was in violation of the 1978 law requiring an IG.

Four years and nine months.  That's the answer if you're just speaking of Barack's tenure as US president.  But the actual answer is that the US State Dept was without an IG for five years and eight months.

It's really sad (a) that Secretary Kerry didn't know the answer on his own and (b) that his staff he consulted mid-answer didn't know the correct answer.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen:  And I appreciate your swift action to try and --

Secretary John Kerry:  I decided that we needed -- It's important, it's an important part of oversight.  So I hired Steve Linick who is our current Inspector General who came from FHFA [Federal Housing Finance Agency] but who's also been a former federal prosecutor is an outstanding attorney and person for the job.  And-and I welcome the oversight.  That's number one.  Number two, I began this process looking at our liabilities.  It came from my time here on the Committee [prior to becoming Secretary of State, Kerry was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] -- when I traveled to Afghanistan and saw the contracting and recognized the corruption that existed in Afghanistan itself and other problems.  So when I first came in, I told folks we've got to really get a handle on what's happening here.  What we found is -- and what this Inspector General report confirms -- is that there have been some problems in just paper work management.  We know where the money -- No money, no six billion dollars has been lost. We-we --- The money is accountable. But it's keeping up with the paperwork.  Part of the problem is, we have learned, and this is really important to the budget process, every single entity of government where we're managing contracting is under-resourced, under-staffed and it's hard to keep up with the paper.  You say, "Well why not go electronic?"  Well some of these places electronic isn't exactly an option -- Afghanistan or some other places.  But it takes people and so we are under-resourced with respect to that.  But we are on it the Deputy Secretary of State for Management is pursuing this and we will have a report for the Inspector General showing exactly where they are and where they are going and this is a good process. And I think people should welcome this kind of oversight and process and get on top of things. 



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"53 reported dead in Iraq as Nouri's War Crimes con..."
"Indefinite Detention Should End for Prisoner Detai..."
"Property Managers Change Policies After Denying Re..."
"Learn the Constitution, John Kerry"
"John Kerry gets prissy and rude before the Senate (Ava)"
"Rand Paul's security concerns re: Benghazi"
"More episodes please"
"How to get The New Yorker to publish Hersh?"
"Music"
"Again on Sy Hersh's report"
"Save us from the cowardly idiots"
"What a stupid stunt"
"The Mindy Project"
"His $3 million visit to Belgium"
"THIS JUST IN! 'OUR' BECOMES 'HIS'!"

His $3 million visit to Belgium

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

WHEN FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF NEEDED A LITTLE PICK ME UP LAST MONTH, HE JAUNTED OFF TO BELGIUM FOR 24 HOURS, HOPING TO IMPRESS FOREIGN MEDIA AND GARNER SOME LOVE.

WHILE THERE HE MADE HIS 'I LOVE WAR ON IRAQ' SPEECH AND HE ALSO SPENT $3 MILLION DOLLARS -- U.S. TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O INSISTED HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO SPEND THE MONEY, "IT'S MINE!  ALL OF IT!  I'M GOING TO SPEND EVERY PENNY BEFORE THEY PUT ME OUT OF THIS HOUSE!  IT'S ALL MINE!  MINE!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Iraq is supposed to hold parliamentary elections April 30th.  The outcome is supposed to determine who the prime minister is.  Supposed to?  Following the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the US government imposed Nouri al-Maliki on Iraq as prime minister.  Following the March 2010 parliamentary elections, the US government imposed Nouri al-Maliki on Iraq as prime minister.  Kurdistan Tribune's Kamal Chomani tells Joel Wing (Musings on Iraq), "What makes the elections more interesting is that all political parties, including Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, are unanimously trying to put an end to PM Maliki's authoritarian wishes, but it is very much clear that Maliki will win. The whole elections will be about Maliki. The elections are like a referendum on Maliki as in Turkey it was on Erdogan."

But the elections in 2010, the ones Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya?  Those were a referendum as well even if US President Barack Obama chose to spit on the Iraqi voters by installing Nouri (via The Erbil Agreement) for a second term he didn't win.  As Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted last month, "Which is to say the US forced a puppet government into power before it left, despite Prime Minister Maliki losing the last election, and put in place an election system so crooked that even the Maliki-appointed election commission resigned en masse yesterday rather than take part in April’s planned vote."

Will the pattern of the US government insisting Nouri be prime minister repeat or will Iraqis finally be able to determine for themselves who they want as a leader?

That may be the biggest news to come out of the election.

In 2010, Nouri decided he was too good to run with his political party (Dawa) so he created his own coalition: State of Law.

Being stupid and physically ugly doesn't make you an automatic member of State of Law, but it doesn't hurt. Reidar Visser (Gulf Analysis) offered yesterday that State of Law was witnessing a number of defections and he identifies two as being the most potentially damaging:

Firstly there is list 228, headed by Izzat Shahbandar as candidate no. 1 in Baghdad. It is also running in Wasit, Basra, Dhi Qar and Karbala. The list also includes former Iraqiyya member Abd al-Khadar Tahir, reflecting perhaps the fact that Shahbandar was formerly one of the Maliki aides considered most sympathetic to the idea of cooperating with Sunnis and secularists. Judging from the make-up of his list, though, the successes in this respect north of Baghdad remain limited, even after the split from Maliki.
Second there is list 211, associated with Sami al-Askari. It will run in most Shiite-majority governorates as well as in Diyala. Another leading figure on the list is Najaf governor Adnan al-Zurfi. Given the connection to Najaf, the list has links to Shiite religious circles in Iraq’s holy cities. At the same time these are politicians with a record of dialogue with the Americans and the West, perhaps more so than some of the more Iran-sympathetic circles within State of Law.



As the date looms, many interesting developments occur.  Sunday's developments revolved  around cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.  For example, All Iraq News reported:


The head of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, Ammar al-Hakim, and the head of Sadr Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, discussed the political situation and the next elections.
A statement received by All Iraq News Agency cited "Hakim met Sadr in Najaf province on last Saturday night."
"Hakim confirmed the necessity of adopting national unified stances and to consolidate dialogue among the political sides," the statement added.

Moqtada and al-Hakim have been close, working partners since the summer of 2013.  Al-Monitor's Harith Hassan tells Joel Wing (Musings On Iraq), "Although Pro-Sadr block and Hakim’s coalition are running separately, it is very likely they will ally after the election, especially if they feel this move will help blocking Maliki’s attempt to win a third term."  Moqtada had another high profile discussion Sunday.  NINA noted:


Kurdistan leader Massoud Barzani discussed on Sunday with head of the Sadrists bloc cleric Moqtada al-Sadr the political and security situation in the country.
A statement by the presidency of the Region today, said that Barzani and al-Sadr held a telephone conversation during which they stressed the need to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled in a stable and quiet atmosphere.

Interesting since Moqtada was 'out of politics.'  Clearly, that's not the case.  He wouldn't be talking elections today with Ammar al-Hakim and with KRG President Massoud Barzani.

Moqtada al-Sadr announced his political retirement February 15th.  February 18th, he delivered a speech --  CounterPunch posted the speech in full  -- emphasizing his decision. February 26th,  NINA noted the rumors that Moqtada left Iraq, "The sources noted in a press statement that Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr left today's afternoon the city of Najaf heading to the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to complete his religious studies and stay away from the political scene as he officially announced for all Iraqis."  Yet March 14th, Moqtada returned to Iraq.

Clearly, Moqtada has not stepped away from the political scene.  Things might be easier for Nouri if he had.

Who was it that got Moqtada to return?  Who should Nouri blame for that?

From the March 14th snapshot:


Background. Nouri's big mouth ended up tanking his own two-day conference.  For those who missed it, Nouri's fat mouth was flapping last Saturday insulting many as he spoke to France24.  France 24's Mark Perelman interviewed (link is text and video) Nouri for a half hour broadcast which aired Saturday.  In the interview, Nouri's well noted paranoia was on full display as he repeatedly declared, in the very first two minutes, his alleged 'victory' over those attempting to turn Iraq and Syria into one country ("there are goals to create a one state," "create a state -- one part in Syria and one part in Iraq").  He continued to gab and began accusing other countries of supporting terrorism (he was supposedly going to reveal proof of his gossip in the conference but, as usual, his fat mouth made empty promises).  He also insulted Moqtada.


That's right, Moqtada returned because Nouri attacked him on French television.  Alsumaria notes that a State of Law MP denounced Moqtada and Barzani's conversation.  State of Law is clearly upset by Moqtada's return.  They need to remember Nouri is the reason Moqtada is back.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"At least 30 reported dead in Iraq as Tony Blair re..."
"Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Drone Kil..."
"I hope the Administration doesn’t think such a pro..."
"Caterpillar Inc is a member of the corporate profi..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "When To Say Go..."
"Hejira"
"Nouri's Iraq: Another reporter assaulted, election..."
"I Hate The War"
"Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Drone Kil..."
"The Vote to Declassify Interrogation Report (Senat..."
"Real Unemployment at 12.7% (Senator Sanders)"
"Did Tina Fey run off ticket buyers again?"
"Can dickless Robert Parry go to a nursing home already?"
"scandal - the bad"
"Polio"
"Peter Dale Scott"
"Mickey Rooney passed away"
"Sy Hersh"
"The Drone War"
"The bully goes down"
"ObamaCare cuts Medicare funding"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Will prayers be enough for Iraq?
• TV: Saturday Night Live's latest problem
• Why Town & Country bombed
• TV: Joan & Melissa (Jess)
• Secretary of State John Kerry can't stop boasting
• Where are the jobs?
• This edition's playlist
• Hey, Washington Post,
• Tweet of the week
• Must read of the week
• VA sneaks in policy to close doors on veterans
• Blank Project: Neneh Cherry's comeback is worth th...
• Tweets, the Cuban 5 and the U.S. blockade (Cheryl ...
• Real Unemployment at 12.7% (Senator Bernie Sanders...
• Highlights

"He wants Chris Evans"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O EXPLODES!"

He wants Chris Evans

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

IT'S ONE SNIT FIT AFTER ANOTHER AT THE WHITE HOUSE THESE DAYS.

AN ANGRY BARRY O SPENT THE BULK OF SATURDAY HURLING OBJECTS AT A WALL TO SMASH THEM.

WHAT HAD HIM SO ANGRY?

NO, IT WASN'T ANOTHER SELFIE.

IT WAS LEARNING THAT THE BLOCKBUSTER FILM CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER CALLS OUT THE WHITE HOUSE POLICIES.

"I GOT F**KED!" SCREAMED BARRY O.  "AND I DIDN'T EVEN GET F**KED, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!  THEY SCREWED ME OVER SO THE LEAST THEY COULD HAVE DONE IS SCREW ME!  I MEAN CHRIS EVANS, HUBBA, HUBBA, HUBBA!  I'D RIDE HIS FLAGPOLE LIKE OLD GLORY!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Will today be remembered as the day Iraq War supporter Hillary Clinton's presidential dreams vanished?

Possibly.

A letter from [PDF format warning] the Office of Inspector General letter might just do the trick.

Fox News noted:

The Office of Inspector General, in a March 20 "management alert" to department leaders, said the department has failed to provide all or some of the files for $6 billion worth of contracts in the last six years.
"The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," the memo said.

Adam Kredo (Free Beacon) noted, "The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report."


But nobody appeared to know what they had.

Let's first note how this plays out in a campaign.  The obvious question is one of competency as in, "Can she handle the presidency when she couldn't even handle the State Dept budget?"

It needs to be noted that Hillary has spent her year-plus since resigning as Secretary of State with only one public goal: To present herself baddest bitch in the whole damn town.

She's screamed for war, compared people to Hitler -- Let's just stop for a moment on that.  How do you become president when you're screaming "Hitler!" at someone?

At any rate, she's attempted to prove just how tough she is -- as if anyone ever doubted she could be cold blooded or ruthless.

And now this comes up.

How is John Kerry better Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton?

There are a lot of variables which go to opinion.  And there are some people who would argue that neither are good in their positions.

But these are appointments, these people are not elected, they are appointed.  Since the American people had no say in the process -- despite paying their salaries -- it is especially important that they do their jobs and do the jobs professionally.  In a democracy, you're supposed to have an open government.

Does Hillary grasp that?

John Kerry did.

Let's drop back to the April 17, 2013 snapshot, where we reported on that day's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:


Chair Ed Royce:  I'd also like to call your attention to the State Department's Inspector General's Office.  This is the key independent office looking at waste and fraud.  Mr. Secretary, as of today, there has been no permanent State Department Inspector General for over five years.  This includes President Obama's entire first term.   The Committee raised this issue in a bi-partisan letter sent to you in February and we would like to see an immediate appointment to this position.

Secretary John Kerry:  On the IG, you're absolutely correct.  We're -- we're trying to fill a number of positions right now, the IG among them.  The greatest difficulty that I'm finding now that I'm on the other side of the fence is frankly the vetting process.  And I've got some folks that I selected way back in February when I first came in and it's now April and I'm still waiting for the vetting to move.  I've talked to the White House.  They're totally on board.  They're trying to get it moved.  So I hope that within a very short span of time, you're going to see these slots filled.  They need to be.  And that's just the bottom line.  It's important and I commit to you, we will.

Chair Ed Royce:  I think this is the longest gap that we've had in the history of this position.  So if you could talk to the President about this in short order, we would very much appreciate it. 

Secretary John Kerry:  I don't need to talk to the President, we're going to get this done.  We know it and we're trying to get the right people.  Matching person to task and also clearing all the other hurdles, as I am finding, is not as easy as one always thinks.  But we'll get it done.  


Kerry kept his word.  As Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported yesterday, "The warning was the second 'management alert' in State Department history, both issued by new Inspector General Steve Linick. Linick took over the job in late September, after it had been vacant for nearly six years."

For Hillary's entire four years as Secretary of State, she didn't feel she need to be accountable.  She wasn't about to 'subject' herself to oversight.

She proved to be hostile to it.

It's this sort of thing that made many hate her -- yes, hate -- as First Lady.  She thought she could do whatever she wanted with, for example, health care and do it away from the public eye and from any oversight.  She had the chance, as Secretary of State, to embrace democracy and she chose not to.

$6 billion is unaccounted for and that's largely from her four years.

John Kerry only had to be asked once publicly by Congress about the IG.  And he didn't have to puzzle it.  He didn't have to take the question for the record.  He immediately agreed that an IG was necessary and that there would be someone appointed to that position and that they were already working on it.

But for her entire four year term as Secretary of State, Hillary avoided oversight, she subverted democracy and, in the process, she appears to be unable to account for billions of US taxpayer dollars.

That doesn't say "presidential."  And it means "Travelgate" and all the other scandals or 'scandals' (I didn't think there was anything there beneath the smoke) come back to haunt her.  Secretary of State was supposed to be the prestige position that propelled Hillary to a new level but that didn't happen.

A comment on DeYoung's article is confusing:

sleeve

7:11 AM CST

Once again paying the price for the corrupted GOP refusing to approve needed vital personnel to protect us from the vast network of fraud establish under W went he rented out our government functions to his highest campaign contributors. W belongs in a cage at The Hague.

Is Sleeve stating that the money that's missing/unaccounted for from 2008 to present is Republicans' fault?

If so, is Sleeve saying ("refusing to approve needed vital personnel") that the Republicans in the Senate must have blocked a nomination for the State Dept IG?

If that's what's Sleeve's saying, Sleeve is wrong.

There was no nominee.

And Republicans in Congress joined with Democrats in raising the issue in public letters to the White House and Republicans in the House tended to raise this issue repeatedly.

December 7, 2011 we reported on the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing.

Subcommittee Chair Jason Chaffetz:  Before recognizing Ranking Member [John] Tierney, I'd like to note that the Defense Dept, State Dept, USAID and SIGAR will not have IGs in January.  In May of this year, I wrote the President asking him to move without delay to appoint replacements.  That letter was signed by Senators [Joe] Lieberman, [Susan] Collins, [Claire] McCaskill and [Rob] Portman, as well as [House Oversight Committee] Chairman [Darrell] Issa and Ranking Member [Elijah] Cummings and Ranking Member Tierney.  I'd like to place a copy of htis record into the record.  Without objection, so ordered.  To my knowledge, the President has yet to nominate any of these replacements, nor has he responded to this letter.  I find that totally unacceptable.  This is a massive, massive effort.  It's going to take some leadership from the White House.  These jobs cannot and will not be done if the president fails to make these appointments.  Upon taking office, President Obama promised that his administration would be "the most open and transparent in history." You cannot achieve transparency without inspectors general.  Again, I urge President Obama and the Senate to nominate and confirm inspectors general to fill these vacancies  and without delay.


So don't blame Republicans or Democrats in Congress for what Hillary did as Secretary of State.  Let's note

Speical Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen from that same hearing:

SIGIR Stuart Bowen:  First, I am concerned about maintaining SIGIR's ability to get the information we need to complete ongoing audits and investigations and to continue to provide the kind of comprehensive Quarterly Report coverage that the Congress has come to expect from us. The State Department recently instituted a new bureaucratic process, requiring the channeling of information that we request from the Embassy through Foggy Bottom offices.  This process inevitably will cause delays, impede our capacity to deal directly with the individuals in Iraq responsible for providing the necessary data, and thus reduce our  responsiveness. Symptomatic of this bureaucratic development, one of my investigators, working jointly with the FBI on a criminal case, recently was refused information by the State Department regarding a potential subject (who is a State employee). State directed my investigator to use the "audit process" to obtain this investigative information. Worse, he was challenged as to whether the information, which he had requested in good faith, was even related to "reconstruction funding." This development is just the latest quandary in a predicament-filled year, during which the State Department has repeatedly raised fallacious objections to varying SIGIR requests. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member -- and the full Committee's leadership -- for their steadfast support of our oversight mission; but these recent issues underscore  the reality of the continuing oversight challenges that confront us. 

Attending hearings on Iraq and what the State Dept was doing there was very frustrating and not just for me watching the interaction but for members of Congress.  As we have noted repeatedly since the State Dept took over the US mission in Iraq in October of 2011,  they did so with no transparency.  They attempted to circumvent Stuart Bowen and his office (which is no more today even though the State Dept continues to have a budget of approximately a billion each year just on Iraq) and they refused to inform his office or the Congress what they were doing.

How bad was it?

For one example, let's drop back to the December 1, 2011 snapshot which covered the November 30th hearing of the  House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East ans South Asia.  The State Dept was represented by Brooke Darby.

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Madame Deputy Assistant Secretary, welcome. Is it your testimony here today that the State Dept is fully committed to transparency and accountability with respect to any and all programs it has oversight and responsibility for in Iraq?

Brooke Darby: We take our responsibility for accountability and cooperation with all of the  audit entities, with Congress very, very seriously.

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: No, ma'am, that was not my question.  Is it your testimony that you're fully committed to transparency and accountability with respect to those responsibilities?

Brooke Darby: We are absolutely committed to accountability.

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Full accountability?  Full transparency and accountability?

Brooke Darby:  I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how you define that so . . .

US House Rep Gerald Connolly:  Well I guess I'm not sure why you avoid the word.  That was my question and you've ducked it three times.  Are we or are we not, is the State Dept committed to full transparency and accountability to the tax payers in the United States and the people who served in Iraq or not?

Brooke Darby:  We absolutely are accountable to the tax payers, to our Congress and to all of the oversight bodies who are looking into how we are spending our dollars, whether our programs are achieving success.  We are absolutely --

US House Rep Gerald Connolly:  Alright. I'll sort of take that as a commitment. 

This was characteristic of Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State.  The Congress was unable to get answers -- especially ahead of the transfer of Iraq from a DoD-led mission to a State Dept-led one and in all the time that followed that transfer.

Six billion is unaccounted for.  And the bulk of it is from Hillary's term as Secretary of State.  She came in with no IG and she demanded no IG.  She served four years without any check or oversight.  And she and her people stonewalled Congress and any body or official attempting to provide oversight.

The missing money is a mark against her and against what she tries to pass off as "leadership."  No oversight, no accountability, that's not leadership in a democracy.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"State Dept can't account for 6 billion in funds"
"#WaveOfAction Day 1 ~ Toward A New Paradigm (David..."
"CCR Responds to Senate Intelligence Committee’s Vo..."
"Wyden, Udall on Revelations that Intelligence Agen..."
"Buzz for Leta Hong Fincher's Leftover Women (Zed B..."
"Marvel's worst villain (spoilers)"
"Captain America: The Winter Soldier"
"Brokeback Mountain?"
"Raising Hope goes out sucking"
"Ugly Rebecca Solnit"
"scandal"
"Music"
"Unforgettable returns"
"Easy Zucchini Parmesan in the Kitchen"
"More money wasted overseas"
"How could he?"
"THIS JUST IN! BETRAYED!"

How could he?

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS FUMING MAD AFTER BOSTON RED SOX PLAYER DAVID ORTIZ TOOK A SELFIE WITH BARRY O AND THEN IT TURNED OUT TO BE A SAMSUNG PLOY.

WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY EXPLAINED THIS AFTERNOON TO THESE REPORTERS THAT BARRY O WAS FURIOUS WHEN BARRY O CUT HIM OFF.

"HE BETRAYED ME!  THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PERSONAL, BETWEEN US!" BARRY O SCREECHED.  "IT'S LIKE HE RELEASED A SEX TAPE!  HOW DARE HE USE ME!  I WAS ONCE THE MOST POPULAR PERSON IN THE WORLD AND WHEN I WAS I USED PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME!  NO ONE USES ME!  NO ONE!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Today Aaron Glantz and the Center for Investigative Reporting report the disturbing news of 1,000 veterans who died wrongful deaths (the VA had paid out $200 million for these deaths):

In that time, CIR found the agency made wrongful death payments to nearly 1,000 grieving families, ranging from decorated Iraq War veterans who shot or hanged themselves after being turned away from mental health treatment, to Vietnam veterans whose cancerous tumors were identified but allowed to grow, to missed diagnoses, botched surgeries and fatal neglect of elderly veterans.

On PRI's The Takeaway with John Hockenberry today, Aaron Glantz spoke about his new report.  Excerpt.

John Hockenberry:  Aaron Glantz, what is it that the VA was doing here by putting up this process instead of treating veterans' symptoms which you would think a medical institution ought to be doing?

Aaron Glantz: This is something that we hear so often talking with veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and where the VA has some of the best psychologists, doctors, psychiatrists in the country at treating war trauma.  But then the agency has this unyielding bureaucracy that makes it difficult for anyone to see any of these clinicians.  We always hear about long wait times for necessary care and what we found in our investigation that since 9-11, the VA had paid out over $200 million to nearly a thousand veterans who died under the VA's care -- and many of them died waiting for necessary treatment that might have saved their lives.

John Hockenberry:  Now, Aaron, some might look at that $200 million in wrongful death claims and the 1,000 individuals that are involved here and say, "Okay, the system is working.  The VA has a huge amount of responsibility.  These are some errors that were corrected."  How do you view this?

Aaron Glantz:  It's true the VA sees more than 6 million veterans every year.  Somebody could take a look at the 1,000 deaths that the VA paid out money in a wrongful death settlement and say, "Well some degree of medical error is inevitable dealing with a system this big."  The way I look at it is these are people who served their country, who went to war, they did what we told them to do and then they got home with the expectation that the government, which sent them to war, had created a health care system which would take care of them and meet their needs. And it's important that we really assess how often we fail these veterans and whether or not the VA is doing enough to prevent these deaths from occurring.




Matthew M. Burke (Stars and Stripes) reports on efforts to address this and other issues, US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee:

  In February, Miller and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., introduced the VA Management Accountability Act of 2014 in the House and the Senate, respectively. The legislation by the Florida Republicans would give the VA secretary complete authority to fire or demote VA Senior Executive Service or equivalent employees based on performance — the same authority members of Congress have to fire their own staffers. Congress would then be notified for purposes of oversight.

The legislation was introduced Feb. 11 and the committee heard stakeholder opinions during a March 25 hearing. It has 40 co-sponsors from both parties and the support of the major veterans service organizations. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, joined GOP leaders and representatives of several veterans’ service organizations Thursday in the Capitol to discuss the legislation.

“There are some serious problems over at the VA,” Boehner said during the news conference, and the legislation is “another tool” to hold VA facilities accountable.

“What’s missing from the equation is not money or manpower, it’s accountability,” Miller told Stars and Stripes.

At the Defense Dept website, Erin Wittkop notes retired General Peter Chiarelli continues to advocate on behalf of veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress, "Nobody who's 22-years-old wants to be told they have a disorder, that's why I don't call it PTSD.  That's why I call it Post-Traumatic Stress."  Eleanor Goldberg (Huffington Post) writes about PTS today:

One solution is "getting rid of the 'D' in PTSD," Sgt. Thomas James Brennan, a Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said on HuffPost Live. "My diagnosis absolutely broke my heart. It’s not because I didn’t know that I didn’t have problems. The word 'disorder' made me feel as though I was damaged. I was embarrassed."
At the heart of the issue, experts say, is that service members are trained to be tough, stoic and independent warriors who can withstand anything when it comes to defending their country and their brothers.
Being a fighter and also having an illness that impairs mental health in many cases is a dichotomy that veterans can’t accept. 

Labeling it a "disorder" has created a stigma and yet we see the government 'struggle' to do the right thing which is start referring to it exclusively as PTS.   If Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave that order (or President Barack Obama), the Pentagon would immediately begin referring to it as PTS as would the VA. This would have a ripple effect on the Congress and the press.  And veterans with PTS would be the ones to benefit.  The stigma would be removed. And it wouldn't cost a dime.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The US government can't even protect their own mil..."
"PTS and Peter Chiarelli"
"A 15-Year Murder Spree (David Swanson)"
"Elementary and e-mails"
"Impeach and other topics"
"Earth Day and activism"
"Arrow -- where Oliver reacts instead of thinking"
"How Barack destroyed elections"
"more crap from community"
"Benghazi hearing"
"Observations on Jude Law, Emily VanCamp and Anne Hathaway"
"The Honey Pot"
"Real news"
"His latest evading of the law"
"THIS JUST IN! PRETTY GIRLS MAKE THEIR OWN RULES!"

His latest evading of the law

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

AS FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O TRIES TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC WITH 'REFORM' OF THE ILLEGAL SPYING, A NEW WRINKLE EMERGES:

The Pentagon’s inspector general is trying to suspend and possibly revoke the top secret access of the Defense Department’s former director of whistleblowing, triggering concerns in Congress that he’s being retaliated against for doing his job.
If the recommendation is acted on, Daniel Meyer would no longer be able to work in his current job as the executive director for intelligence community whistleblowing at a time when President Barack Obama’s reforms of the system are supposed to be underway .

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/02/223269/is-whistleblower-advocate-for.html#storylink=cpy

"I'M A DELICIOUSLY WICKED BITCH," BARRY O CACKLED TO THESE REPORTERS TODAY.  "I DO WHAT I WANT AND SCREW THE CONSTITUTION!  PRETTY GIRLS RULE!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Today, at the US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Marie Harf noted Iraq because Said Arikat, Al Quds bureau chief, raised the issue:



QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: The death toll as a result of violence in March was 1,888 in Iraq. And as we’re getting closer to the election day, what is the United States providing in terms of security aid, trying to help the Government of Iraq stemming the violence?

MS. HARF: Well, a few points. Let me be clear that the elections need to happen. We have every expectation they will. This is an important step forward for the people of Iraq in choosing what they want their country to look like going forward, so elections need to happen as scheduled.
We are concerned by the continued escalation of violence in Iraq. We know there’s been a number of adverse impacts on the population, including massive civilian displacement.
In terms of security assistance, I don’t think I have anything new to update you for on that. I would – and so we are working very closely with the Iraqi Government on the security issue. I can see if there’s more update for you on what we’ve provided. We believe it’s very, as I said, very important for these elections to go forward. They’ve held successful elections in the past during periods of significant violence, which is obviously not the situation we want to see, but I think – I just want to underscore the importance for the Iraqi people of these elections going forward.

QUESTION: Could you – these deliveries that were promised last fall, could you update us or --

MS. HARF: Which ones are you talking about specifically?

QUESTION: Well, there were the Hellfire missiles --

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: -- the – other equipment, helicopters and --


MS. HARF: Yeah. Let me see. Said, let me take that and check with our folks and see what has been delivered.


The State Dept thinks elections need to happen?

No, they don't.  They don't give a damn about real elections or they would be speaking up as Iraqis denied the right to vote in the planned April 30th parliamentary elections.  Elections were supposed to take place in all 19 provinces (the KRG increased by 1 province last month).  But Iraqi elections, to be legitimate, must include the displaced.  And they have in the past.  In fact, Nouri's attempt to short change refugees out of the country in 2009 pushed the parliamentary elections back to 2010 (Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi used his veto power to sink the bill).


The illegal war in Iraq created the largest refugee crisis the region had seen in over sixty years.  Many fled to neighboring countries.  That's why, in 2010, polling stations for the elections were all over the world.  Syria has a large number -- even now -- of Iraqi refugees.   This go-round, it has been decided that refugees in Syria will not be allowed to vote (see the March 3rd snapshot).

It is stated that Syria is just too dangerous for a polling station.  Syria, Jordan and Lebanon remain the three countries with the highest number of Iraqi refugees as a result of their sharing borders with Iraq (and as a result of governments like the US leaving them stranded -- both in terms of ridiculous regulations and, in Syria, by closing down the means the refugees had to apply for admission to the US).

As we pointed out weeks ago, "Then again, it really just effects the Sunnis so maybe that's why it didn't receive any coverage?"

You saw that yesterday:

Yes, campaigning kicked off today and to ensure that the corruption could take hold, broken promises were not called out.  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports, "If the fighting goes on, Iraqi military officials say it would be impossible to hold elections inside the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, which has been taken over by the militants — but they hint the vote could perhaps be held on the city's outskirts. As many as a third of the province's cities might be affected, election officials say."  AFP words it, "Though not officially confirmed, the vote appears unlikely to take place throughout parts of the western desert province of Anbar, which has been wracked by violence since the beginning of the year, with militants holding control of an entire town on Baghdad’s doorstep."  The US State Dept, once so adamant that elections must take place everywhere in Iraq, was silent on the news.


And today?  Anadolu Agency reports, "Residents of militant-held cities and towns in Iraq's western Anbar province will have to leave their neighborhoods to cast ballots in upcoming parliamentary elections, Anbar Governor Ahmed al-Dulaimi said."  It's real cute how, bit-by-bit,  Nouri al-Maliki chips away at the Sunni vote in his attempt to win a third term as prime minister.

Only one person right now is speaking up, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.  Al Arabiya News reports:

Iraq’s Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr urged Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday not to run for a third term, accusing him of terrorizing Sunnis so that they don’t go to the polls in the upcoming April 30 general election.
“I advise brother Maliki… brother Maliki thinks he served Iraq, let him rest for four years, and see if whoever comes next would serve better… if not let him come back after four years, it is not a problem,” Sadr told reporters in Najaf, 60 kilometres south of Baghdad.

The Shiite leader, who had announced his withdrawal from active politics, accused Maliki’s government of “building a dictatorship” by excluding candidates from the parliamentary elections.

Good for Moqtada but how telling that he can speak the truth that the State Dept can't.


Nouri al-Maliki's assault on Anbar is months old and still continuing.  Nigel Wilson (IBT) notes, "The violence in Anbar began when government forces stormed a protest camp last December. The protestors had been there for a year, disgruntled by government neglect and withholding of regional funds."  It was a bit more complex than that -- there was the issue of the rape and torture of Iraqi girls and women in detention centers and prisons, there was the lack of public services, the lack of jobs . . .   But the storming of the camp, the murder of protesters, did kick off this assault.


In his continued shelling of residential neighborhoods in Falluja, Nouri has killed 2 civilians and injured five more (including children).  This is the dictator Barack insisted Iraq must keep in 2010, even though Nouri lost that election.  Barack knew better than the people of Iraq.  Strange because after insisting  Nouri remain prime minister, Barack's not visited the country once.

He won't visit a country where a thug like Nouri is in charge but he'll inflict Nouri on the people of Iraq who've already suffered more than enough.

And as the suffering continues, people aren't staying silent except in the United States.  One of the most vocal statements was issued by Campaña Estatal contra la Ocupación y por la Soberanía de Iraq (CEOSI) and BRussells Tribunal carries it here.  Excerpt:

  At the beginning of 2011, the different peaceful protests that began to struggle fight against the occupation — involving trade unions, students, human rights activists, etc.,— unified their efforts in what was called the February 25th Movement [5] and reached a national level.
This peaceful resistance was suppressed by the state and intentionally ignored by the mainstream media, which largely led to its disappearance. However, this long journey of struggle and growing popular discontent has been the root of the popular revolution that we are witnessing today in Iraq.
Since late 2012, these demonstrations and popular and peaceful sit-ins have resumed in some western provinces; they have been spread to the South and have reached the capital, Baghdad. [6] Despite the government non-stop attempts to put an end to the protests, they have continued till now, especially in Central and West Iraqi provinces, where people have been suffering persecution and the regime’s sectarian policies. There are many reasons for the people to take the streets: Corruption, sectarianism, unemployment, lack of access to basic services, illegal arrests, etc., which derives from the foreign occupation and from a class rule that triggers hatred, division, power struggles and the plundering of the national resources. In 2011 the reasons for the popular revolution were crystal clear in the mottos demanding the withdrawal of the U.S. troops and the removal of the regime.
For more than two months now, the Maliki government has been waging a war against the Iraqi people in several provinces in an attempt to end the popular revolution. Although the protests have been totally peaceful, Maliki has accused the population of these (majority Sunni) areas of being part of or supporting the terrorist organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. [7] Without any hesitations, the government continues bombing the civilians, while receiving military aid from the U.S., Russia and Iran. The bombing has caused numerous deaths and new waves of refugees. [8] In response to the government attacks, the population has organized itself into military councils to protect its territory and fight for what all Iraqis ― from North to South ― have demanded since the beginning of the occupation: prosperity, unity and national sovereignty. [9]

In these critical time to Iraq, CEOSI would like to express its full support for the Iraqi popular revolution — armed and peaceful— and we state that the military councils have been created for self-defense due to the total absence of legal protection and contempt for the law in Iraq; a situation where sectarian and partisan militias run the country and the government, far from ensuring the safety of citizens, exercises state terrorism, so that,




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Anbar remains under assault and hard times for Sah..."
"Josh Hicks plays How To Be A Stooge In 5 . . . 4 ...."
"Talk Nation Radio: Rick Rozoff on Ukraine and NATO..."
"Joint Statement in Support of The Targeted Lethal ..."
"Financial aid to Urkaine?"
"Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox and NBC's Revolution"
"Robert Altman, How I Met Your Mother, American Mas..."
"Margaret Kimberley weighs in on the War Criminal"
"Owen Gleibernman bites the dust at EW"
"Horrifying"
"The continued attacks on Venezuela"
"Impeach, Impeach, Impeach"
"Such bad (media) news"
"scandal - fitz and other things"
"Supreme Court disappoints again"
"Bradley Cooper plays Marilyn to his JFK"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S THE BOY NO GIRL COULD CATCH!"