He's got another brilliant idea!

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

IN THE SPIRIT OF HIS NEW LEAN SOMEWHERE THINKING, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O ANNOUNCED TODAY NEW STEPS HE WILL BE TAKING.

"I'LL BE EXPLORING BRIGHT AND NEW VISTAS," HE GUSHED TO THESE REPORTERS.  "SUCH AS PARDONS.  WHY DON'T WE PARDON BENEDICT ARNOLD?  HE'S DEAD BUT HE MADE SUCH IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  His office issued the following today:

Miller Demands VA Comply with HVAC-Issued Subpoena, Threatens Additional Legal Action

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

Jun 3, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.— After writing Acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson regarding VA’s repeated failure to comply fully with an HVAC-issued subpoena, Chairman Jeff Miller released the following statement.  

“Today’s VA is a case study in how to stonewall the press, the public and Congress. And as we found out last week, often times officials from across the department have routinely sought to hide information about some of VA’s most pressing problems from the department’s own senior leaders. I am hoping Acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson will put an immediate stop these disturbing trends. To that end, I have asked Sec. Gibson to provide our committee with any and all remaining documents responsive to our May 8 subpoena no later than June 9, 2014. Right now, Sec. Gibson has a chance to begin to repair the reputation of a department that has gained notoriety for its secrecy and duplicity with the public and indifference to the constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities of Congress. I am hoping he makes the most of this chance.” Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Related
Chairman Miller Letter to Sec. Gibson Regarding VA’s Noncompliance with Committee-Issued Subpoena
June 2, 2014

This isn't a minor issue that Miller is raising.  This is a major one.  As we noted in Friday's snapshot, a culture of secrecy has taken hold at the VA.  Congress has been rebuffed on requests, has had to resort to subpoenas and those get rebuffed as well.  The people are represented by the Congress, the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government to the executive branch (and to the judicial branch).  Congress is tasked with laws and oversight and it can't do its job if the executive branch is not providing accurate information.

In Friday's snapshot, I made a number of people angry when I stated (yes, "stated," the snapshot are dictated, I don't type them up) the following:

It was about Congressional requests that are not being honored.  Congress is supposed to provide oversight. But since 2009, the VA has stonewalled Congress and outright ignored requests for information.
You can blame the White House for that since it's over the VA.  I don't know that I would or wouldn't.  But it is a problem and everyone should be aware of it now and the White House should order the VA to start complying with all Congressional requests as, in fact, they're legally supposed to.

"You can blame the White House for that since it's over the VA.  I don't know that I would or wouldn't."  That's what made people angry.

I had no problem calling for Eric Shinseki's resignation.  When he revealed to Congress October 14, 2009 that he'd known since January that the rollout on the Post-9/11 GI Bill would not go smoothly, that he'd been told of that when he became VA Secretary, that he hired an outside consultant to review the situation and the consultant said the same thing, that's when I called for Shinseki's resignation.  He knew there would be a problem.  He did not give veterans a heads up.  He did not give Congress a heads up.  When the problems started with checks not being received, he allowed VA officials to publicly blame education institutions and to blame veterans.  He should never have allowed that.  I have no problem calling him out and veterans suffered because of him.

Barack?

I've got six years demonstrating I have no problem calling out Barack as president.  And I may end up calling him out on the VA issues.  I have no problem stating that he's ultimately responsible.  But Shinseki making one mistake did not turn me against Shinseki.  It was finding out that he knew veterans were going to suffer and he not only didn't inform veterans or Congress but he also allowed his Department to lie to the public.  That's a crossed line.

I can call Barack out for Iraq (and have and will) and I can call out for The Drone War, for the illegal spying, for any number of things.  And I'm fine with that.  But I have no idea what information he received.  I thought he was willfully ignorant of some VA issues.  The big one was the seamless transition -- an electronic medical record created for a service member which would follow them from the Pentagon to VA when they left the service and became a veteran.

Congress poured billions into that.  It is still not up and running.

We have called out the 'progress' on that repeatedly.  The press has ignored it, we haven't.  The VA Secretary and the Secretary of Defense had to first agree on which computer system to use -- they currently use two different systems.  Once that's decided, things move forward.

I knew for a fact that Leon Panetta had listened to Shinseki's argument for which system to use (Shinseki wanted to use VA's system) and Leon told him, "Fine.  Use it.  Let's move on to the next step."  When I wrote about that here, a friend wanted me to know that this was basically Robert Gates' response as well.  (Robert Gates was Barack's first Secretary of Defense.  Leon Panetta became his second.  Chuck Hagel is currently the third.)

So I began noting that Gates had also agreed so that the program could move forward.

But it never did.  And I would call Barack out for that here.  Especially when, less than two months after Hagel became Secretary of Defense, Ranking Member Mike Michuad asks Shinseki about the progress on this issue and Shinseki, who's been working on it for five years now, blames Hagel.  He says Hagel's adjusting to his job and so nothing's been done.

I blamed Barack -- here and in loud conversations with friends in the administration.  Fortunately, Hagel was offended (who wouldn't be?) by Shinseki using him as a scapegoat and Hagel insisted on a meeting with Barack -- Hagel, Shinseki and Barack.  At that meeting, a system was decided on and things were supposed to move forward.  Did Barack not know about the foot dragging before that meet-up was scheduled?  Possibly he didn't.  I don't know.  I do know when he finally got involved, the issue was resolved.

I don't know at present how much honesty on the VA reached Barack.  So I'm not comfortable making him the focus of my VA critiques.  If others are, they should do so.  I'm not saying he's off-limits.  I am saying that, for me, I'm not there yet.  If others are, more power to them.

My focus in calling for Shinseki's resignation was because Shinseki was clearly and repeatedly failing.  Veterans deserved better than they were getting.

Barack hasn't lived up to his promise to veterans.  That's a fact as far as I'm concerned.  But, barring a revelation from a friend in the administration (I don't see one coming -- I know Leon Panetta, if Barack was intentionally failing veterans, Leon wouldn't have stood for it and would have been publicly critical of Barack), I can see this as Barack not getting the needed information to know what was going on.  By that, I mean Shinseki gave happy talk presentations that were not rooted in fact.

And we can all be fooled and tricked.  (I'm not trying to bring anyone over to my way of thinking, I'm merely explaining where I stand on the issue.)

There is a culture of secrecy at the VA.  They have not been transparent.  They have quibbled over word choice with the Office of the Inspector General (an "error" is an error, the VA needs to stop splitting hairs).  They have flat out lied and they're running about three shell games right now.

All of the problems with the VA go to the culture of secrecy.


Melinda Henneberger (Washington Post) had  a strong article on the VA which noted:

When he put new guidelines in place requiring that veterans be seen quickly, the response was to fake the paperwork to make it look as though wait times had disappeared.
But with nothing less than the lives of our veterans at stake, how could employees do that, and why would they lie?
Nickolaus’s answer to that question is that after years of being “told to shut up or retire,” most people eventually do one or the other. “You see the dead wood and get exasperated.”Overwhelmed, she said, you despair of actually changing anything, in other words, and give up.

That's the culture and it needs to end.

Barack should now be aware of it.  He should be calling for the VA to be transparent, to use the same terms with the same definitions as the Office of Inspector General and for the VA to comply will all Congressional information requests.

If Barack doesn't do that after the failures of the Shinseki period, I will have no problem calling him out.  And I will do it loudly and mockingly and any way I feel at that moment.

But for me this primary issue was Shinseki was too quick to believe anything he was told and provided too little oversight and, most of all, his actions were harming veterans.  I wanted him gone and now he's gone. The problems aren't going to disappear.  They're going to have to be addressed and I hope Barack addresses them.  If someone who is as critical of Barack as I am can hope that he will demand real accountability at the VA and end the culture of secrecy, this could be a big win for him with others because I'm not a Barack fan.  I didn't vote for him either time.  (In 2008, I voted for a candidate not with the duopoly and in 2012 I didn't vote for the office of president.)   But I will be the first to applaud him if he can end the culture of secrecy.  Hell, I'd applaud if he could even just make a strong dent in it.

Because the secrecy is what is harming the veterans.  It's what caused the problems with the tuition checks, it's what causes people with Post-Traumatic Stress being stripped of their diagnosis.  It's behind every scandal under Shinseki and all the ones to come if this is not addressed.  If the secrecy is removed, then Congress and the American people can know the truth and work on solutions.  If the culture of secrecy continues, expect more press exposes.

The VA is not going to meet a number of goals they set for FY 2015.  It would be really smart for them to stop lying and admit it's not happening so they and the Congress could work together to figure out how to improve.

That's where I am on the issues and why I'm there.  Here's where Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are via a statement they issued yesterday:


This is a defining moment in American history. After decades of neglect, years of failure and weeks of controversy, all of America is focused on our nation’s veterans. As a result of the scandal that began in Phoenix, the sacred trust at the VA has been broken. But it can be rebuilt. With leadership, creativity and tenacity, the VA can be stronger in the broken places. 
Now can be the time when America can finally turn the corner on decades of failures at the VA—and for our veterans of all generations more broadly. 
The national membership of IAVA calls on President Obama to move quickly to create and execute a bold, comprehensive plan to support all generations of American veterans. It must be a top priority for the President for the duration of his term and involve the entire federal government, Congress, the private sector, philanthropy, veterans groups, the medical community and every resource our great nation can muster. It’s time for a Marshall Plan for veterans. 
America’s veterans are depending on strong leadership from the President and are standing by to support in any way needed. 
The plan should include the following 8 steps as recommended by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA):  


1. Appoint a Post-9/11 veteran, or someone very familiar with our community, who is a proven, dynamic leader capable of making dramatic changes and inspiring the turnaround VA needs. The VA needs a proven reformer at the top who can end the crisis and drive the VA to become the 21st Century organization our veterans deserve. America needs a unique brand of hybrid leader--a proactive change-agent who understands Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, technology, healthcare and Congress. The new Secretary must also be an effective communicator who can level with the public, operate effectively in the midst of a growing scandal that may span dozens of cities and continue for months, and inspire the best talent in America to answer the call to serve at VA.


2. Initiative a full criminal investigation and punish all violators to the full extent of the law. The IG has revealed a full system failure. An unknown number of bad actors have ruined the reputation of the VA. Those who have violated America’s sacred trust with our veterans must be rooted out nationwide and held accountable. Only if these people are cleansed from the system will the VA workforce, IAVA members and the rest of America ever have faith and trust in the system again. 


3. Implement the recommendations of interim IG report for Phoenix. The interim IG report recommended that the VA: (1) do a nationwide review of all facilities, (2) audit new requests for appointments across the system to ensure all veterans are on the list to be seen, and (3) reach out to veterans affected in Phoenix to get them into care. The VA must now to implement these recommendations immediately.


4. Pass the VA Management Accountability Act. The Senate must act now to pass the VA Management Accountability Act. The bill (endorsed by Secretary Shinseki in his final public remarks) gives the Secretary of the VA the authority to remove under-performing Senior Executive Service employees from their jobs. Without the ability to fire poor-performing managers, the next VA Secretary will struggle to restore a culture of accountability throughout the VA. 


5. Support the recommendations in IAVA’s 2014 Policy Agenda that focus on building a 21st Century VA. For years, IAVA has demanded a 21st Century VA, an organization able to find problems, respond decisively, and provide the quality of care veterans of all generations deserve. This is especially urgent for IAVA veterans who present new healthcare needs, more gender diversity, and significant geographic shifts. To move towards a 21st Century VA, Congress and the VA must: 

A. Mandate best practices for managing VA medical facilities. There is a saying that when you’ve seen one VA hospital, you’ve seen one VA hospital. But there are best management practices that can improve care at the VA if implemented across the entire system.

B. Overhaul the training and technology of the VA’s scheduling system. The nationwide audit of VA facilities exposed many problems in the training of VA scheduling employees. The VA must re-establish scheduling guidelines, improve training for staff, and invest in new scheduling technology.

C. Change performance metrics to focus on quality of care. The VA scandal has exposed what many veteran organizations have talked about for years: accountability is lacking at the VA. The VA must realign its performance metrics and performance incentives to encourage and deliver quality care.

D. Smooth the Transition between the Department of Defense and the VA. Too much is lost between the DoD and VA. Despite significant investment, there is still no interoperable health record and many veterans never enroll in VA care. The DoD and VA must improve collaboration to adequately care for today’s veterans. 

E. Invest in Technology to Transform the VA. The technology underpinning all of the VA’s work, including the disability claims process and appointment scheduling, is woefully outdated. Without 21st Century technology, the VA can never be a 21st Century organization. 

6. Fully Fund the VA to the levels recommended by the Independent Budget. Despite consistently claiming otherwise, it is clear that the VA does not have the resources it needs to meet the demand for care. The VA currently relies on outdated and inadequate formulas to project their needs. Congress should fully fund the VA to the levels recommended by the Independent Budget, a budget written by leading veteran service organizations including IAVA. In FY2014, the IB recommended $4 billion more for discretionary medical services funds than the President requested or Congress appropriated. 



7. Support best-in-class non-profit organizations that the fill gaps. The VA can not meet all of the needs of America’s veterans alone. And some vets will never go to the VA. Non-profits fill the gaps and are often there for vets when VA can’t be. The VA is also often most effective when it partners with non-profits, as demonstrated by the tremendous progress made toward ending veteran homelessness. Innovative programs like IAVA’s Rapid Response Referral Program (RRRP) assist veterans in reaching private, local and VA resources in times of crisis. They also serve veterans who are not eligible for VA services--like those with “other than honorable” discharge status.


The public must donate their time, money and talent to trusted, effective, best-in-class non-profit organizations who continue to face growing demand with extremely limited resources. Philanthropy, corporate leaders, and all Americans must donate as generously as possible now to support these essential groups supporting veterans. The Iraq and Afghanistan Deployment Impact Fund (IADIF), the Schultz Foundation, the recent First Lady's donor initiative, and Robin Hood have all created effective blueprints for national support that must be replicated, expanded and scaled. 


8. Combat suicide by passing the bi-partisan Suicide Prevention for America’s Veterans (SAV) Act, enacting an Executive Order, and connecting 1 million veterans with resources by the end of 2014. According to VA data, 22 veterans die by suicide each day. Many of these men and women never reached the VA. Only bold, comprehensive action will prevent suicide and ensure that veterans have access to quality mental health care. Congress must act by passing the Suicide Prevention for America’s Veterans Act (SAV Act). The President must issue an Executive Order as outlined by IAVA. And all American can help by promoting suicide prevention resources in their local communities. 


Mike Prysner is an astute person.  We'll provide a link to his piece at Global Research (Mike is also an Iraq War veteran.)  But I can't quote from it because it's premise is Congress isn't funding the VA adequately.

I'm sorry, Mike's too intelligent to make that assertion.

The VA, like every other Department in Barack's Cabinet, creates their own budget request.

So stop this generic underfunding claims garbage.

Show me where the VA requested X and wasn't given it by Congress, show me that or stop this nonsense.

Beto O'Roarke is a Democrat from Texas in the US House of Representatives. Last Wednesday night, he did what members of the House and Senate Veterans Comittees do over and over: Ask VA officials present for the hearing if they needed more funding, if they needed more anything.

As happens over and over and over at these hearings, VA begged off requesting more funds.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's Iraq: Bombing hospitals, arresting journal..."
"Now you're outraged by negotiations with terrorist..."
"Juvenile Prison: $5 Billion for Child Abuse (David..."
"Maya Angelou gave literary, political voice to Afr..."
"Barack has a deal for you!"
"His own worst enemy"
"The return of Mistresses (Karen and Jos)"
"barack's latest round of negotiations with terrorists"
"Mistresses returns (Savi and April)"
"Another fine mess Barack has gotten himself into"
"Guantanomo"
"The latest White House scandal"
"Barack makes (another) deal"
"Ode to Billie Joe"
"Words are like Casper, they haunt"
"THIS JUST IN! STUCK ON REPEAT!"

Words are like Casper, they haunt

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

AMIDST THE ONGOING V.A. SCANDAL, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O FINDS OUT WORDS CAN COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU, LIKE HIS YEARS AND YEARS OF PROMISES TO FIX THE V.A.

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O EXPLAINED, "YEAH, I SAID IT THEN.  BUT I DIDN'T MEAN IT.  IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS TIME I MEAN IT.  HONEST."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Nouri al-Maliki's War Crimes never end.  Since January, he's been bombing residential areas in Falluja and killing and wounding civilians.  National Iraqi News Agency reports Nouri's bombing of Falluja's resedential neighborhoods left 6 people dead and twenty injured.

That was not the only violence today.  Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) counts 40 dead from violence today.

National Iraqi News Agency reports a Nasiriyah roadside bombing left six people injured, an Arsriah Village bombing killed 2 people and injured four more, a Najaf car bombing killed 13 people and left seventy injured,  a Mishahda suicide car bomber took his own life and the lives of 2 police members with five more left injured, 1 person was shot dead in Falluja (three more wounded), the Ministry of the Interior announced that bombings in Babil, Dhi Qar and Najaf left 2 people dead and 21 injured (the Najaf bombing they're counting was a roadside bombing that injured 8, not the car bombing we already noted), 1 police member was shot dead in Baghdad, the Island and the Desert Operations Command announced they killed 7 suspects in Wady Soub, Joint Operations Command announced they killed 5 suspects, a Mosul battle left 1 Iraqi soldier dead and another injured, 1 person was shot dead in al-Khalis, 1 little girl was shot dead in an attack on her al-Wajeehiya home and her father was left injured, 1 person was shot dead just outside Baquba, 1 person was shot dead in Al-Muqdadiya (another injured), a Mousl roadside bombing killed 3 police members, a battle near Ramadi left 7 rebels dead (twenty-one more injured),  a Yarmouk roadside bombing left 2 people dead, Ahmed Nabil (a member of Nineveh Governor Ethyl al-Nujaifi's protection service) was shot dead outside his al-Aarabi home,  and 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad ("signs of strangulation and stabbing by sharpen tool").

Over the weekend, the month of May concluded and the monthly death toll was noted.  UNAMI issued the following:

Baghdad, 1 June 2014 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of at least 799 Iraqis were killed and another 1,409 were injured in acts of terrorism and violence in May*.

The number of civilians killed was 603 (including 144 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1108 (including 218 civilian police). A further 196 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed, and 301 were injured (not including casualties from Anbar operation).
“I strongly deplore the sustained level of violence and terrorist acts that continues rocking the country. I urge the political leaders to work swiftly for the formation of an inclusive government within the constitutionally mandated time frame and focus on a substantive solution to the situation in Anbar”, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG), Mr. Mladenov said.
Anbar excluded, Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 932 civilian casualties (315 killed, 617 injured), followed by Ninewa (113 killed 248 injured), Salahuddin (94 killed 146 injured), Kirkuk (22 Killed, 60 injured), Diyala (38 killed 28 injured). 
*CAVEATS: Data do not take into account casualties of the current IA operation in Anbar, for which we report at the bottom the figures received by our sources.

Operations in Anbar
According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the total civilian casualties in Anbar up to 30 May were 195 killed and 499 injured, with 95 killed and 222 injured in Ramadi and 100 killed and 277 injured in Fallujah.

Other counts were compiled as well.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes, "Antiwar.com compiled 2,249 fatalities, of which 1,075 were civilian and security member deaths. Another 1,953 people were wounded, including 87 militants."   Iraq Body Count notes 1027 civilians killed for the month.  AFP's count is 900.


We're getting closer to the half-way mark for 2014.  AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted the following:

Prashant Rao @prashantrao  ·  13h

So far in 2014, at least 4,139 people have been killed, 6,081 wounded by violence in Iraq - @AFP: http://u.afp.com/IraqCasualties 

Today, the Economist offers, "Most Iraqis here appear to support the end of Saddam’s regime, but criticise the American government and military officials for inadequate post-war planning that has left Baghdad and much of the country in chaos. In 2013 over 7,800 civilians were killed, surpassing the total of 6,787 in 2008, during the conflict. This year is looking just as deadly, although many Iraqis hope against the odds that the recent elections will bring progress and stability."



Thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki wants a third term.  His office issued the following today:


His Excellency Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki said in an interview with Al-Iraqiya TV which will be aired at a later time we now have 175 guaranteed votes, but we want more partners who agree with us in the program and principles to be adopted in the next government , and he called on all political blocs to adopt understanding and dialogue in order to form the government as soon as possible and move towards construction and development.
With regards to the adherence of some political blocks and some politicians to what they call red lines against this or that party , Mr. Prime Minister said: I recommend that everyone read the developments well , there has been so many developments during the past four years and none can holds the neck of the political process anymore .
On the goal of the conference, which the Prime Minister called for in Anbar , his Excellency said it is intended to isolate the terrorists and strengthen national unity in Anbar and address reconstruction efforts .
On the issue of exporting oil from the Kurdistan region and its consequent effects , the Prime Minister said, that this act is in violation of the Iraq's sovereignty and Iraq's constitution , it cannot be accepted under any conditions. He stressed that there is no such thing as cutting the salaries of the Kurdistan region, but this is a banner raised for mobilization and incitement.

Nouri may or may not have the votes his office states.  He's prone to making claims that aren't true.  All Iraq News notes, "The Ahrar bloc within the Sadr Trend and the Kurdistani Democratic Party announced rejecting the nomination of the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, for the third term of the Prime Minister Post."

The KDP is the most popular  political party in the Kurdistan Regional Government.  KRG President Massoud Barzani is the head of the KDP.  (Most popular assertion is based on the KDP coming in first in the KRG provincial elections and first in the April 30th parliamentary elections.)  On the subject of the Kurds, Hiwa Barznjy (Niqash) explores where the Kurds stand on the issue of Iraq's next prime minister:

The two most popular political parties originating in the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan are the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, and the Kurdistan Democratic Party, or KDP. The KDP appears to have 25 seats in Baghdad while the PUK has 21 – the next largest Iraqi Kurdish party, the Change movement, has nine seats.

And the PUK and KDP feel differently about working with al-Maliki for another term. The KDP are presently totally committed to getting rid of him while the PUK isn’t quite as sure about that. The PUK’s ailing leader, Jalal Talabani, who has been in hospital in Germany for over a year, is actually the President of Iraq and it is well known that the PUK has a better relationship with al-Maliki than the KDP. The question of whether the PUK would cut a separate deal with al-Maliki to become part of his coalition government has already been mooted.

The other question is whether the KDP would drop out of the united Kurdish group to support Ammar al-Hakim, who they are allegedly closer to. Al-Hakim is the leader of one of the other major Shiite Muslim parties in Baghdad, the Ahrar bloc, which represents the interests of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in politics.

Parliamentary elections were held April 30th.  May is ending but there's no one named prime minister yet.

In 2010, Iraq set the record for the longest time between elections and the formation of a government. They've since been bested and Nouri may be hoping they can reclaim their title.  It certainly seems like a possibility based upon the remarks of MP Abbas al-Bayati.  All Iraq News reports the State of Law MP insists that "the next government" will be formed "before the end of 2014."  Way to shoot for the stars.  If the government was formed on December 30th, that would be eight months to form the government.

The April 30th elections were a farce.  Nouri and the IHEC did not allow Falluja and Ramadi to vote.  Nouri's forces showed up in Sunni dominant areas and kept the polls closed for half-a-day before allowing them to open.  It was one stunt after another guaranteed to decrease turnout.

Reuters' Ned Parker Tweeted the day of those elections:

Ned Parker @nedmparker1  ·  Apr 30

More than 200 #Iraqi journalists waiting to vote got kicked out of a polling center at 6 pm deadline by #Iraqi SWAT who said leave or else.

Nouri wants a third term but he's unwanted by so many political blocs and Iraqi citizens.  Mustafa Habib (Niqash) notes:

The Iraqi Kurdish are not the only ones to have made this kind of announcement. The Sadrist movement, led by cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and represented in Parliament by the Ahrar bloc, has also said they don’t want to see their former ally, al-Maliki, given a third term as Prime Minister.

Another of al-Maliki’s most important former allies, the Muwatin, or Citizen, coalition which represents the interests of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, led by another cleric Ammar al-Hakim, has expressed similar sentiments.

Both of the latter are mostly composed of Shiite Muslims, the same sect as al-Maliki. Meanwhile al-Maliki’s long time opponents – mostly Sunni Muslim blocs and parties as well as some secular blocs – have also said they won’t contemplate a third term for al-Maliki.  

Al-Maliki’s bloc has won around 94 seats and it’s highly likely this share will increase to over 100 – anything from 102 to 110, analysts suggest - as the big bloc attracts smaller parties to its ranks to try and form a coalition big enough to be allowed to form the next government.

Meanwhile all of those who oppose a third term for al-Maliki number more than enough to form a government – they have around 180 seats out of Iraq’s 328 seat Parliament. And some have suggested, perhaps rather optimistically, that these groups could form a kind of grand coalition because they all have the same focus: keeping al-Maliki out. Such a coalition could be described as grand because it would cross most of Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian boundaries, uniting all those who usually jostle for political power for their own sector of Iraqi society; it would herald a true post-sectarian age for Iraqi politics. 

If the PUK has thrown in with Nouri, it will further sideline the PUK.

In the provincial elections, Gorran (Change) destroyed the PUK.  Months later in the parliamentary elections, the PUK increased their turnout via Jalal Talabani.

December 2012,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot).  Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.

A video showing Jalal -- the first since he went to Germany -- was distributed ahead of the parliamentary elections and rallied the PUK (Jalal is the head of the PUK) bumping up their turnout.

That's a one time stunt.

Video of Jalal won't do a damn thing again.

Jalal in the flesh might.

But if the PUK is partnering with Nouri, they will be sidelined in the KRG and Gorran will be the second most popular party.  Nouri has refused to implement Article 140 (which would determine Kirkuk's status) and he's refused to hand over to the KRG their slice of the 2014 federal budget.  These are two big reasons he's disliked, they are not the only ones.  With the KDP standing up, if Jalal's PUK cowers at the feet of Nouri, they will be revealed as spineless and craven.  Gorran will easily replace them.

In the KRG, the longing for a Kurdish nation-state has never gone away.  It's also become a more visible dream with KDP members and others floating that the KRG might break away from Iraq.  If the PUK can't lead the vision, the Kurdish people have no need to support the PUK.

And with Jalal on a deathbed or a never recovery, the PUK will look even more out of touch.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"IAVA’s 8 Steps to Restore Confidence in the VA"
"Paralyzed Veterans of America Offers Support to Se..."
"Chairman Sanders Lays Out Legislative Action Plan ..."
"VA Releases Interim Report on Wait Times (DAV)"
"Blinded Veterans Raise Critical Issues at House Su..."
"American Legion on Shinseki's resignation"
"VA SECRETARY ANNOUNCES RESIGNATION (VFW)"
"Heroes and Frauds"
"Hejira"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Plan"
"Iraq: Post-election scramble continues"
"I Hate The War"
"“Force Protection Alpha in Effect” –coming to a to..."
"ANALYSIS: Poroshenko's Millions Interfere With Ukr..."
" Senator Fake Ass"
"the film collage"
"Maleficent"
"Things I'm tired of (Solnit and sexism)"
"Sorcerer"
"Ann B. Davis passed away"
"We are James Risen"
"Glen Ford"
"Gore Vidal"
"Illegal spying"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Hey, John Kerry, who needs to 'man up'?...
• TV: The documentary that fails
• Congress and Veterans
• This edition's playlist
• Film classic remade
• And Disney Created Sexism . . .
• Film Classics of the 20th Century
• Cindy Sheehan's campaign ad
• Murray Statement on the Resignation of Veterans Af...
• Miller Statement Regarding Sec. Shinseki’s Resigna...
• Comics Unmasked: Drawing the battle lines in a fun...
• No to U.S intervention in Syrian election
• Highlights

"Carney's exit interview"
"THIS JUST IN! CARNEY PREPARES FOR NEW LIFE!"

Carney's exit interview

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

WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY IS LEAVING HIS JOB.

IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THESE REPORTERS, CARNEY EXPLAINED, "I JUST GOT TIRED OF ALL THE BULLS**T, YOU KNOW?  EVERY DAY I STOOD UP AND LIED AND HAD TO LIE AGAIN THE NEXT DAY.  IT GOT SO BAD THAT I COULDN'T EVEN JERK OFF ANYMORE BECAUSE I FOUND MYSELF SO DISGUSTING.  WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO IS SPEND SOME TIME WITH MYSELF NOW, GET TO KNOW MYSELF AGAIN, RUB A COUPLE OUT, YOU KNOW?"

ASKED WHAT HE WOULD MISS THE MOST, JAY CARNEY SAID, "NOT ONE DAMN THING.  NOT. ONE. DAMN. THING."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Do you really think the only failure at VA currently is the issue of secret lists?

If you're a gasbag or a reporter who never does any work, you may think so.  Those of us who've done the work, who've attended these hearings, know the wait list is only one of many failures at the VA.  We also grasp that the VA has operated under a culture of secrecy.  They tell Congress there's progress, Congress requests proof of that, proof is not supplied and, if the veterans community is lucky, a press expose reveals the VA is lying.  Without that expose, the Congress is repeatedly stonewalled by Congress.

With the exception of field hearings, I believe I've only missed three Congressional VA hearings since 2006. I'm really not in the mood for lies and I'm especially not in the mood for lies from people who didn't bother to ever attend even one hearing in the last eight years.

On the Thursday morning hearing, Ruth reported on it in "Blind veteran describes computer issues" and I covered it in yesterday's snapshot and it's noted at the end of "VA did not make providing quality care a primary goal" and "A few comments on Senator Richard Burr."  We were going to cover it today. Hopefully, we'll have room and time.  But Shinseki's resignation and the press spin means we have to go the second hearing yesterday, yesterday afternoon's hearing of the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs.

First, let's note the statement Chair Jeff Miller issued today:

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

May 30, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Following the announcement of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki’s resignation, Chairman Jeff Miller released the following statement.

"Everybody knows Eric Shinseki is an honorable man whose dedication to our country is beyond reproach. I thank him for his legacy of service to our nation. Unfortunately, Shinseki's tenure at the Department of Veterans Affairs will forever be tainted by a pervasive lack of accountability among poorly performing VA employees and managers, apparent widespread corruption among medical center officials and an unparalleled lack of transparency with Congress, the public and the press. Appropriately, Shinseki is taking the brunt of the blame for these problems, but he is not the only one within VA who bears responsibility. Nearly every member of Shinseki's inner circle failed him in a major way. Those who surrounded Shinseki shielded him from crucial facts and hid bad news reports, in the process convincing him that some of the department’s most serious, well documented and systemic issues were merely isolated incidents to be ignored. Eric Shinseki trusted the VA bureaucracy, and the VA bureaucracy let him down.”

“Right now, VA needs a leader who will take swift and decisive action to discipline employees responsible for mismanagement, negligence and corruption that harms veterans while taking bold steps to replace the department’s culture of complacency with a climate of accountability. VA’s problems are deadly serious, and whomever the next secretary may be, they will receive no grace period from America’s veterans, American taxpayers and Congress.” – Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

I think that's a fair assessment.  I don't think many -- if any -- believe Shinseki set out to deceive or that he was trying to damage veterans.  He fought some members of Congress (Senator Jim Webb) to get those suffering from Agent Orange the help they need.  That's a major accomplishment and no one can take that away from Shinseki.  We gave him credit for that.  When there were some veterans groups attacking him because a veteran got arrested and would be prosecuted by a relative of Shinseki, we stated here that Eric Shinseki is responsible for his role as Secretary of the VA and he is not responsible for family members carrying out actions in other jobs and positions.

Shinseki couldn't provide oversight.  He was said to be to easy to please.  He didn't dig for answers.  The next person who heads the VA has to be determined and needs a new staff who will repeatedly probe various programs and various medical centers to ensure that problems within the VA are known at the top.

Now for yesterday afternoon's hearing.  We're going to the second panel and to Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations Linda Halliday.

Disability claims.  How's that going?  Shinseki had said it would be down to 125 days by 2015 -- Fiscal Year 2015 which means October of this year.  Mere months away.  And the number of days currently to process these disability claims?  249.

But, somehow, by magic?, in five months, that 249 is supposed to drop to 125.

This is part of the VA problem and where's the press on it?

With Quick Start claims-processing, Halliday explained, VBA had managed, over the last two years to drop down to 249 days -- from 291.  But in five months, they're going to magically halve the current 249 and have 125?

That's going to be some feat to pull off.  (No, they're not going to meet the deadline.)

If you paid attention to her testimony, you saw how it might happen.  VBA wanted to shave off 41 days -- just not count them -- and claim they didn't count.  That's the sort of nonsense that goes to a lack of accountability.  VA gets the numbers they want by lying about the numbers.  That needs to stop immediately.  You can't shave off 41 days, pretend they never took place, just because it will give you better numbers.  Honesty is a core value that needs to be stressed, taught and reinforced at the VA.

Quick Star has not improved the number of days for these claims -- despite having "quick" in the title -- but maybe it's done something with accuracy?

No.

In 2011, the accuracy rate was 62%.  Last year, they raised that to 69% which might seem good except the October 1st deadline, when Fiscal Year 2015 kicks off?  Shinseki had pledged Quick Start would have reached 98% accuracy by that point.  So in five months, watch for it, the accuracy rate is supposed to jump from 69% to 98% on Quick Start's disability claims.

Quick Start aside, the VA's shell game with the backlog.  We called that out when it was presented in a hearing as the big new plan that was going to save every veteran.  Briefly, slap a ruling on a claim and then the claim isn't in the backlog!  No, but it may be in the appeals system.  And that's what's happened.  That is now the fast growing segment on disability claims.  The press is beginning to notice but mainly because VSOs are raising the issue.  But when this came up and we called it out here I noted at one point that if an error was made in the favor of a veteran it should be like a Monopoly card "Bank error in your favor."  And this led to e-mails about how the government couldn't afford it and I noted that the more likely scenario was veterans getting underpayment not overpayments.  In her testimony, Halliday addressed inaccurate claims that had been re-decided.  Here are the amounts through July 2012:  veterans were overpaid $463,000 and veterans were underpaid $2.8 million.

You can keep that mind as we note this exchange from the hearing. Chair Jon Runyan is the Subcommittee Chair.


Chair Jon Runyan: As you know, while VBA is reporting timeliness an equal, if not greater, concern is the accuracy for each veteran. VBA is looking at hundreds of thousands of claims. And the veteran is looking at one and only one. Ms. Halliday, accuracy, as highlighted in your testimony, is a serious concern.  I'd like to also ask you a question about of VBA's quality components Start.  You noted that VBA's Start program has several classification errors such as benefit entitlement, decision documentation/notification and administrative.  Mr. Murphy [VA's Thomas Murphy, from the hearing's first panel] responded to an inquiry of Star's failure to count error incidents with potential to effect veterans benefits such as when a claims folder lacked required evidence including medical examination or an opinion needed to make an accurate decision.  Can you comment on that?

Linda Halliday: Yes, I would appreciate that.  The OIG [Office of Inspector General] uses a broader definition of what constitutes an error.  We report errors that effect veterans benefits as well as those that have the potential to effect veterans benefits in the future if left uncorrected. We think this is important.  It's a veteran-centric approach. We do not feel that the Start program counts all of its errors.  There is a disagreement between what OIG considers an error and how VBA calculates its accuracy rate. I have a couple of examples here that we think might help you understand.  VBA does not consider an incorrect disability evaluation to be a benefit entitlement error unless the error impacted the veterans overall combined disability evaluation.  However, OIG would identify this case as an error because it has the potential to effect the future benefits if left undetected.  And that also has a corresponding effect -- it could effect other programs too as the ratings change.  Also, cases where VBA staff simply do not request or significantly delay requesting the mandatory routine future examinations to determine whether the temporary 100% disability rating should continue, we clearly call an error.  We see a significant financial impact associated with not managing those claims appropriately.  


Okay, right there is where the gas bags need to be paying attention.

Cooked books?  How did they get to that point?

With a long-standing practice of weaseling the truth.

The OIG is the watchdog for the VA.  If they're calling it an error, it's an error.  Stop fighting the terms and definitions.  More plainly: Stop lying to make yourselves look better.

Tolerating these lies encourages more fudging and more dishonesty.

No Department should lie.  But with the VA, the lies just never end.  The next Secretary of the VA should make the announcement that what the OIG defines as an error will be the same definition that the VA will use.

Some of the gas bags are blaming it on a "vacationing Congress."  Gasbag Brent Budowsky (at The Hill) insists,  "Congress, deeply enmeshed in another one of its many ludicrous recesses of vacationing and fundraising, successfully demanded the head of the general." While Memorial Day was Monday, I've sat through three Congressional hearings this week.  The House Veterans Affairs Committee -- in full and in Subcommittees -- has held three hearings this week.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri bombs Falluja General Hospital"
"SS Shinseki sails out of the harbor"
"X-Men: The Face of Sexism"
"Further thoughts on X-Men Days of Future Past (Bet..."
"Alyssa Rosenberg is an embarrassment (Seth)"
"Afghan Elections: Pick Your Poison (David Swanson)..."
"Obama West Point Speech -- Myths on Afghanistan, S..."
"Setting the Record Straight on Israel's Jerusalem ..."
"White Beans, Spinach and Tomatoes in the Kitchen"
"Give her an Oscar"
"Maleficent"
"Idiot of the week"
"Carney leaves"
"I'm Over All That"
"The fake asses"
"the need for critical skills"
"Diana Ross' Swept Away"
"The War Hawk administration"
"Head injury could explain a lot"
"THIS JUST IN! HIS POWDER PUFF FOOTBALL INJURY!"

Head injury could explain a lot

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TRIED TO TAKE BACK CENTER STAGE YESTERDAY WHEN HE WENT OFF BOOK TO ANNOUNCE HE HAD PLAYED FOOTBALL (STOP LAUGHING) AT A YOUNG AGE (3?) AND HAD A CONCUSSION.

MOST AMERICANS HAD NO IDEA THAT THE WORLD OF POWDER PUFF FOOTBALL WAS SO ROUGH AND TUMBLE.

WHEN THESE REPORTERS ATTEMPTED TO QUESTION HIM ABOUT THIS ALLEGED CONCUSSION AND ALLEGED FOOTBALL EXPERIENCE, JAY CARNEY SAID IT WASN'T POSSIBLE.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL INSISTED "THE O" WAS TOO BUSY BECAUSE HE WAS ABOUT TO SPEAK TO A GROUP OF FORMER SOLDIERS WITH T.B.I. AND WOULD BE EXPLAINING THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD T.B.I. AS WELL BECAUSE HE USED TO PLAY SOLDIERS IN A SANDBOX WHEN HE WAS SIX AND WATCHED THE G.I. JOE CARTOON WHILE STONED THROUGHOUT COLLEGE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night, there was no accountability from the VA for their actions. There was even an attempt by the VA to insist that the Phoenix secret list was not, in fact, secret from the VA.

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Congressman, I don't think these lists were secret --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  How did you not find them, Dr. Lynch?  You were there.

Dr. Thomas Lynch: I did find them, Congressman!

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  How many were on the list?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Pardon?

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  You told me you didn't even look at this list.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  I told you we didn't document the numbers.  I told you we were aware --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  You saw the list?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: We were aware of the problem.

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  Why didn't you report to the press and to Mr. Shinseki and to the President of the United States that there were 1100 veterans waiting for care on that list?  Did you tell anybody about this?  You waited 35 days.  35 days.  You said that you care about veterans, you care about them, they waited on a list, languishing!

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Congressman, I was focused on trying to improve the process --

US House Rep tim Huelskamp:  What about the 1100 veterans?  So you knew about these veterans that were waiting for care --

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, I wish I had identified the number of veterans and we could have moved forward more quickly.

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  Did you try to do anything to get care for these veterans, 1100 veterans, waiting?  Some of them might have been on the list that died.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, we identified the processes and we put people on the ground --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  Yes or no?  Did you do anything for those 1100 veterans?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, I put in place an understanding of the process which allowed us --

US House Rep Tim Huelskamp:  They are still waiting for treatment. Sir, I think that is your answer.  I yield back to the Chairman.


Again, that's from Wednesday night's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on the VA's inability to provide the Committee with information in a timely and accurate manner.  US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Committee Chair, US House Rep Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member.

The Committee held from one panel which was comprised of VA's Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Clinical Operations Dr. Thomas Lynch; the VA's Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs Joan Mooney; and the VA's Congressional Relations Officer Michael Huff.


Inability to provide information?

Since March 14, 2013, US House Rep Tim Huelskamp has been asking for a list of "those who had been punished."  He still hasn't gotten the list.

"Meanwhile, the bonuses continue,"  Huelskamp noted.  "You realize, the information that we have, this is from a website source, we can't get it from your agency, but at Phoenix an $843,000 worth of bonuses. So it wasn't just the director.  It was over a two year period.  My question, what we haven't received yet is the listing of those who lost their bonuses for failures in the system?  Who are we going to hold accountable?"

Inability to provide information?

As Ruth reported on the hearing the VA has also been denying Congress access to VA employees.  Ranking Member Mike Michaud explained to Joan Mooney that when the Committee requested testimony from subject matter experts, these experts aren't allowed to testify.

Ranking Member Mike Michaud:  Okay, we have an e-mail and we'll be glad to share it with you, Ms. Mooney, from a subject matter expert saying that that is the policy of the VA.  Now we can address that, I brought it to Sloan Gibson's attention, I've talked to the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki] a number of times about the fact that the relationship between the Department [of Veterans Affairs] and this Committee is getting extremely strained because we are not able to get the information that we need to.  We tried to, at the beginning of my term as Ranking Member, we tried to smooth out some of the requests as far as going directly to the subject matter expert.  That has not worked.  And so hopefully, we'll be able to get that working the way it should be working, rebuild our trust and open line of communication.


At this point, there is no trust or open line of communication.  This morning, I noted US House Rep Beto O'Rourke

US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  I hope you will do that.  Another thing that struck me, you were talking about a failure within the VA that resulted from elevating a performance measure into a goal which could possibly have led to the scandal in Phoenix and other -- perhaps other-other parts of the VA.  If the current performance measures are not working what are some recommendations that you have for how we measure performance at our VHA system?

Dr. Thomas Lynch: I-I -- Don't get me wrong, I think that we need to have performance measures.  I think that they need to be tools that help us understand our system.  And I think we need to focus on our primary goal which is: are we seeing veterans, is our system growing, are we providing quality care?  When those become the goals of the system, then you cannot game performance measures.  Performance measures become a tool.  If you ignore them, then you're actually hurting yourself because you're not growing your system like you're supposed to and as a director or an administrator you will fail.


So, according to Lynch's testimony, the goals of the VA were not "seeing veterans" or the growing system or "providing quality care."  If those had "become the goals of the system, then you cannot game performance measures." Performance measures were gamed via secret lists. That happened.

Lynch also told O'Roarke about one of VA's potential "plans."

Dr. Thomas Lynch: Congressman, one of the options we have been discussing internally is whether or not we could partner with the Veterans Service  Organizations and use their membership and use their members as, uh, an opportunity to identify the kind of service we're providing and where they're experiencing delays.  I think there is an opportunity there that clearly needs to be explored further.

The VA gets billions of dollars.  It's proven currently to be inept and criminal.  The answer VA floats is to utilize the labor of the VSOs and the veterans?  With all that money, VA can't provide its own oversight?  It's going to need to tax the VSOs?

And am I the only one who remembers that it was just months ago when the VA was slamming the figures of the American Legion?  But now it wants to use these VSOs to do the job that the VA should be doing on its own?


US House Rep David Jolly noted the "frustration" on the part of the Committee "because we do have an Article I authority to ask the questions but our frustration is rooted in the fact that while we conduct the necessary oversight as part of our Article I responsibility, we continue to hear of a wait list and know that there are wait lists.  And we are held accountable for that, from our constituents.  It's kind of a remarkable process that our constituents hold us responsible for a wait list created by the administration.  And that's probably fair because we have to execute our responsibility."

And if you're not grasping why the Committee is frustrated, let's note this very basic request made in last night's hearing and the VA response to it.



US House Rep Julia Brownley: My constituents and my veterans in my community are also saying there not so concerned about how we got there right now at this moment, but they want to resolve this issue in terms of getting a timely response and making sure that their health care needs -- both physical and mental -- are taken care of.  We've got to figure out the longterm problems, without question.  I think the one question that I wanted to conclude on is that I'm happy that we're going to do sort of a national audit.  I want to understand what that includes.  Does it include the Oxnard CBOC [Community Based Outpatient Clinic] in my district?  Does it go down to that level?  And I want to know 

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  It is my understanding that the audit has now been extended to all VA health care facilities. 

US House Rep Julia Brownley:  Very good.  Very good.  And then, if the VA could provide us with a timeline of every single facility and when this audit is going to take place  and when it will be completed and what are the results of that so that we have a timeline that we can report back to our districts on but so that we can also monitor and watch to make sure that we're covering every single facility across the country. Phoenix has brought a lot to our attention but I'm concerned about so many other facilites across the country.  And if I could get your commitment today that you will provide us with that information, I would be very appreciative.

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  I will do my best to get you that information.  I think it is available --

We're going to stop him right there.  "My best"?

The hearing took place because the Committee is having to subpoena the VA for basic information that the VA is required to supply Congress with.  Brownley's request is a basic one and it's nothing more than compiling a list and schedule.  If the VA hasn't already generated that internally, they should get on that.  But there should be "my best" to provide that basic information to Congress.  It should be, "Yes, we will provide that information."


On the audit . . .

US House Rep Mark Takano:  You state, Ms. Mooney, that the -- that you think the audit might be complete within a week -- a week or two?

Joan Mooney:  Yes.

US House Rep Mark Takano:  My question to you may seem a little perverse but how can you get the audit done so quickly given the scale of the department?  And is that a realistic, uhm, turnaround time for you?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  Congressman, maybe I'll try to answer that based upon what I know about the audits.  Uh, VA has mobilized resources from across our system.  We have asked each of the networks and facilities to provide volunteers to do these audits, to go out and evaluate hospitals so that we can get this audit completed in a timely fashion.

US House Rep Mark Takano:  Now, again, I go back to this issue of-of how good this information is that you're getting from people.  I mean, public officials have called for criminal investigations or turn this over to the Justice Dept.  Are people going to lawyer up, clam up?  I mean is that going to slow down the ability to get information out of people?

Dr. Thomas Lynch:  I am sure that there are people who are concerned.  I think that the IG is also our partner in this.  They have also been evaluating facilities -- particularly those with concerns.  They have authorities that we don't have to obtain the information that we need.  

Stop.  The Inspector General's office is not VA's "partner."  The IG exists to investigate VA.  The VA IG is already tasked with investigating over 40 VA medical centers currently.  They released an interim report on Phoenix this week.  They will not be able to release a report on the other medical centers for awhile.  So to claim that the two are working together is false in so many ways.

The IG is independent.  It can't coordinate with VA leadership in an investigation and be independent.  If Lynch understands what's going on an expressed it accurately to the Committee, the Committee needs to immediately take testimony from the IG's office because Lynch's remarks, if accurate, would indicate several walls in place to protect the independence of the IG office have now collapsed.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Bernie Sanders has a Bernie problem, not a Republi..."
"VETERANS: Murray Statement on VA OIG Interim Repor..."
"VA did not make providing quality care a primary g..."
"A few comments on Senator Richard Burr"
"Robert Redford whored himself out for a neoliberal"
"Another VA scandal brought to you by Shinseki"
"US House Rep Corrine Brown should retire"
"Blind veteran describes computer issues"
"Time for a criminal investigation (Wally)"
"Barbara Lee leads nothing"
"Shinseki has to go"
"Alyssa Rosenberg is an embarrassment"
"The Hot Topics Dumpster"
"Can you believe this?"
"He suffers"
"THIS JUST IN! OH, HOW HE SUFFERS!"

He suffers

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


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.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/28/5853556/text-of-obamas-remarks-at-military.html#storylink=cpy

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.

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?"