Happy baby will still find time to cry

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

BABY BARRY O GOT A NEW TOY TODAY WHEN THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE VOTED TO GIVE HIM THE WAR HE ALWAYS WANTED, THE ONE HE HAD MANY WET DREAMS OVER, THE ONE THAT LED HIM TO AWAKE TO HIS TINY PENIS STUCK TO THE SHEETS FROM HIS OWN O-JUICE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O DECLARED, "I'D BEAT OFF BUT I'VE ALREADY RUBBED MYSELF RAW!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



This afternoon, Senator Robert Menendez declared, "I know some may see this as limiting but at the end of the day, Americans will not be supportive of an authorization of an endless war."

He was speaking at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee  hearing on the Islamic State and the administration's lack of authorization of force, from Congress, to conduct the current bombings taking place in Iraq.  Secretary of State John Kerry was appearing before the Committee "to provide the administration's views," as Committee Chair Robert Mendendez explained.

But he appeared to believe he was elsewhere -- possibly on a parade float?

Kerry was looking around, grinning and waving.

As Menendez declared Americans would not "be supportive of an authorization of an endless war."

As Menendez declared, "They do not want us to occupy Iraq for decades."

Has John Kerry morphed into Johnny Kardashian?

"I think the American people expect their Congressional leaders to engage fully on this issue," Chair Menendez  said as Kerry all but pulled out a compact and mirror

AUMF is the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force."  ISIL is one of the names tossed around for the Islamic State.  With that in mind, we'll note these remarks from the hearing.

Chair Robert Menendez:  Well thank you, Mr. Secretary, let me just say there is I think undoubtedly and I'll let members express themselves, there is a bold bipartisan view that we need to defeat ISIL and I think there is no debate about that.  And virtually every political element from the spectrum those who might be considered dovish to those who might be considered hawkish -- and everybody in between -- I think, has a common collective goal of defeating ISIL.  Now I must say that the administration has not sent us -- five, six months into this engagement -- an AUMF.  And had the administration sent us an AUMF maybe we would be better versed as to what the administration seeks or does not seek and that would be the subject of Congressional debate.  But that has not happened. And with reference to my distinguished Ranking Member's comments?  You know, if we wait for that and it's not forthcoming by this or any other administration then the absence of getting an AUMF from the executive branch and Congress not acting because it's waiting for an AUMF from the executive branch would in essence create a de facto veto of the Constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities that the Congress has.  And so, there are many of us on the Committee who, in the absence of receiving a AUMF for the purposes of understanding the administration's views felt that it is Congress' responsibility to move forward and define it.  Now no one has worked harder in the last two years as a chairman of this Committee to make this a bipartisan effort not just on the AUMF but across the spectrum.  And I'm proud to say that we have -- working with the Ranking Member, we have virually passed out every major legislation on some of the critical issues of our time from the AUMF on Syria and the use of chemical weapons to OES reform to Kor -- to North Korea to Iran -- On a whole host of issues, we have been bipartisan.  Virtually ever nomination except for three -- of hundreds -- have largely been on a bipartisan basis.  So there's no one who has striven harder in this process.  But there are some principled views here that may not be reconcilable.  And it starts with when the administration itself -- and I think you've reiterated what you've said -- earlier in your previous visit here that the president has been clear that his policy that the United States military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations ISIL.  That it will be the responsibility of local forces because that's what our local partners and allies want.  What is best for preserving our coalition and most importantly what is in the best interests of the United States.  Now there are those members of the Committee and the Congress who have a much different view than that.  They would have a very robust and open ended -- uhhhhh-- use of combat forces in this regard.  And if the administration wants that then it should come forth and ask for that.


Menendez was speaking after Kerry finished reading his opening statement.

Combat forces?

The Chair must have been mistaken, right?

Surely the White House doesn't want US forces in combat on the ground in Iraq, right?


Kerry, reading from his opening statement:


On the issue of combat operations, I know that this is hotly debated, with passionate and persuasive arguments on both sides. The President has been clear that his policy is that U.S. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against ISIL. That will be the responsibility of local forces because that is what our local partners and allies want, what is best for preserving our Coalition and, most importantly, what is in the best interest of the United States . However, while we certainly believe this is the soundest policy, and while the president has been clear he's open to clarifications on the use of U.S. combat troops to be outlined in an AUMF, that does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander in chief oo  or our commanders in the field -- in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee. 



If you found Kerry confusing, you weren't the only one.

Secretary John Kerry:  Let me try to help you a little bit on this.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  Well help me this way:  Are you going to ever explicitly seek an authorization from Congress?

Secretary John Kerry:  We're seeking authorization now.  With respect to  --

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  So you are.  And if you didn't receive the authoirzation, will you continue the operation?  That's a --

Secretary John Kerry:  The authorization for what we're doing nowin both Iraq and Syria?

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  That's correct.

Secretary John Kerry:  Absolutely we will continue it because we believe we have full authority under the 2001 AUMF and parts of the 2002 AUMF but here's where I want to help you.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  Good.

Secretary John Kerry:  If Congress passes a new Dash specific AUMF we will support the inclusion of language in the AUMF that will clarify that the Dash specific AUMF rather than the 2001 AUMF is the basis for military force.  And I think that will give comfort to a lot of people.  Second, we will also support the repeal of the 2002 AUMF as part of an effort to clarify the ISIL specific AUMF would be the only source of legitimacy for the use of military force against Dash and therefore we would live under the confines of what we pass here.


John wants to play like Congress is confused.

No, the senators knew what they were talking about.

US President Barack Obama told the American people no US troops would be on the ground in combat.

He made that promise.

And now they want to change it.


Throughout the hearing, Kerry repeatedly insisted that the use of ground troops needed to be put into the AUMF.  Such as when he insisted, "It does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee."


If refusing to send US troops into combat on the ground in Iraq would "bind the hands" of anyone then maybe that needs to be taken up with Barack Obama who is the one who made the promise.


In fact, when he did, there was criticism from some member of Congress -- mainly Republicans -- that he had tipped his hand, let the enemy know how far he'd go.

If Barack wants to take back his promise, the coward needs to stand before the American people and make that announcement.

Congress should not provide him cover to break his promises, cover to lie.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Hagel visits US troops in Iraq"
"Torture"
"Cuba Gooding Jr. is playing who?"
"Joni"
"Diana Ross sang it"
"Torture in the U.S. and U.K."
"Flash"
"John Kerry, damn liar"
"Barack wants war all over the world (Wally)"
"The disgusting World Can't Wait"
"Ground Hog Day (Ava)"
"He has duties"
"THIS JUST IN! HE THOUGHT IT WAS A GLAMOUR POST!"

He has duties

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

LIKE THE LITTLE BITCH THAT HE IS, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O WENT ON THE STEPHEN COLBERT SHOW TO PROMOTE HIMSELF.

AND HE SENT JOHN KERRY TO CONGRESS TO DEMAND CONGRESS ALLOW BARRY O THE OPPORTUNITY/LUXURY TO SEND U.S. TROOPS INTO GROUND COMBAT IN IRAQ.

SAID BARRY O, "I BELIEVE IN DELEGATING THE TOUGH STUFF AND IN LIVING OUT THE FUN STUFF!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




The Democrats lost control of the Senate in the November mid-term elections.  Mary Landrieu was forced into a run-off which she lost to her Republican opponent over the weekend.


When the new Congress is sworn in next month, Republicans will control the Senate (and they remain in control of the House of Representatives).  Community member Brandon wanted to know if I could score the outgoing Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee?

Sure.

It's Bernie Sanders.  He is not a Democrat.  He votes with Democrats (way too often for someone supposedly opposed to corporate control of the Congress) and is often referred to as an "independent" but as Laura Flanders noted the night he was elected to the Senate (in 2006), she doesn't want to hear anyone calling him an independent because he is a Socialist.

He will not be Chair in the next session, a Republican will be.

Sanders as Chair was a disappointment.

If you're a third party, you need to be better than good because there are so few of you.

But Sanders wasn't even good.

His pet issue was non-traditional medicine.

And no one ever forgot it.

That's not what you do as Chair.

That he would advance, for example, acupuncture was not a surprise.

That he would be unable to set aside his pet issues when a scandal emerged?

That's appalling.

But that's exactly what happened and exactly why he lost the support of veterans.

He refused to allow a hearing that was scheduled as the scandal of the VA keeping 'official' lists and secret lists emerged to acknowledge that scandal and insisted that if this was indeed a real scandal he would be the one to lead on this and the Committee would lead on it and blah, blah, blah.

Reality: It was a real scandal.

Reality: The Committee never dealt with it in a hearing.

Over in the House, they did.

Not in the Senate.

Then there's VA Secretary Eric Shinseki whose tenure was one scandal after another -- usually one of his own making.

And when he had lost the confidence of veterans, there was Sanders prattling on about how it was too soon . . .

I think President Barack Obama realized he had to ask Shinseki to resign before Sanders ever grasped their might be a serious problem here.

I spoke with veterans last week as I attended two Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearings -- two.

What was Sanders' sudden interest, everyone wanted to know?  He held very few hearings which became even more noticeable when the scandals kept breaking.

Last Thursday may have been his final hearing as Chair (until the next election cycle).

If so, he went out looking like a huge disappointment.

The hearing was on the nomination of Leigh A. Bradley to be the General Counsel for the VA. In 1998, when she was nominated to the same post by then-President Bill Clinton, the post was described this way, "The General Counsel serves as the chief legal officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs and is responsible for the interpretation of all laws affecting the department and for the review of all regulations implementing such laws. The General Counsel directs the legal, litigative and legislative activities of the department, provides legal advice and assistance to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and represents the Secretary in Congressional committee and other hearings and in interdepartmental conferences on legislative matters."


Chair Bernie Sanders showed up late for the hearing and noted there were impending votes.

Chair Sanders had Bradley stand and swore her in -- something we support doing for all witnesses who come before Congress.


She then began reading from her prepared statement.

Leigh Bradley:  We'll Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member [Richard Burr is the Ranking Member and was listed as such in her written statement, in the hearing Johnny Isakson acted as Ranking Member and she acknowledged him verbally], Distinguished Members of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am humbled and honored to have been nominated by President Obama to be VA General Counsel, and grateful to Secretary McDonald, and Deputy Secretary Gibson for their confidence in me. Mr. Chairman, from the start of my legal career in 1987 as an active-duty Air Force Judge Advocate to my present position as Director of the Department of Defense  Standards of Conduct Office, I have been guided by a deep and personal commitment to our nation’s Armed Forces and its Veterans. I come from a long, proud line of military Veterans. My father is a Vietnam Veteran who served as a career officer in the Army Corps of Engineers. Both of my grandfathers served in the U.S. Army--one in World War I and the other in World War II. My husband served for 20 years as an Air Force Judge Advocate, and my brother-in-law currently serves as an Air Force B-1 Weapons Systems Operator. Finally, and I say this with great joy and pride, my daughter has decided to follow in the family’s footsteps. She is a 2nd Lieutenant in the Air Force, studying to be a doctor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences at Walter Reed. I am immensely proud of her decision to continue our family’s tradition of service in uniform. I have spent the majority of my legal career supporting the mission of the Armed Forces and the needs of our nation’s Veterans. After five years on active duty, I was selected for a civilian position in the DoD Office of the General Counsel. Later, I served as the Principal Deputy General Counsel of the Navy, the second highest ranking civilian attorney in an office of over 600. In 1998, I was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to be General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs. And in my current position, I advise the senior DoD leadership on ethical compliance and creating and sustaining ethical cultures across the Department.

[. . .]
Of late, however, VA has not fully met its responsibilities and obligations to Veterans, and we must make restoring their trust our top priority. To quote Secretary McDonald, “the seriousness of this moment demands urgent action.” I am deeply inspired by the dedication, vision, and leadership of Secretary McDonald and Deputy Secretary Gibson. While this is a challenging time at VA, it is also an exciting and transformative time in which the leaders of the Department, in cooperation with Congress, Veterans Service Organizations, and other Veterans’ stakeholders can collaborate to reform and improve services to Veterans. Yes, there is hard work to be done. But for me, there can be no higher calling than to be part of this historic moment which will have lasting, positive impacts on the care and benefits we deliver to Veterans and the way VA operates going forward. Accordingly, if confirmed, I will work closely with the VA leadership team to strengthen the Department’s ability to serve our nation’s Veterans and restore trust with them, with Congress, and with the American public. I will do all in my power to provide thoughtful, expert advice and counsel on all legal matters including those associated with the implementation of both the Veterans Choice Act and MyVA (the Secretary’s ground-breaking initiative to bring a singular focus on customer service to Veterans), improving access to medical care, better delivery of other VA services and benefits, protecting the rights of whistleblowers, and helping to ensure that the processes to hold employees accountable for wrong-doing are expedient, fair, and defensible. I will do this by exemplifying VA’s core ethical values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence.


Half-way into the year, Leigh Bradley was named special counsel to (then acting) VA Secretary Sloan D. Gibson.  "On loan from DOD's Standards of Conduct Office" as Leo Shane III noted July 2nd.

That position was supposed to be a temporary assignment for her and the understanding was she would return to the Defense Dept.  So one question for her at the hearing might be about that.

I'm sorry.

Questions for a witness?

Not in Bernie's world.

This is a transcript of what followed when Leigh Bradley stopped stop reading her statement.


Chair Bernie Sanders: We thank you very much for your statement.  You and I chatted yesterday and I am strongly supportive of the nomination and you answered my questions yesterday.  Mr. Isackson?

Senator Johnny Isakson:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too met yesterday with Ms. Bradley and we had a wonderful meeting and I want the record to reflect this is one Georgia Bull Dog that's going to pull for an Alabama Roll Tide, Crimson Tide lady in the fall game coming up pretty soon.  Good luck this weekend.  Mr. Chairman, I told Leigh this is probably the most important appointment in the VA other than the Secretary themselves.  And the implementation of the Veterans Choice Act is going to require an awful lot of work from legal counsel to support the Secretary in whatever disciplinary action he takes as well as expedite the review process in cases that are appealed because we're getting more and more disability determinations coming out faster and faster which means we're going to have a higher and higher volume of appeals which means legal counsel is going to be under the gun.  We want to be supportive of you.  We want to streamline that process as much as possible.  We have a two-year window of opportunity to make the VA the best VA in the world and we want to make that happen.  And you're a key part of that. I'm very supportive of your nomination.  Appreciate your willingness to accept the job.  And I really have no questions for [her], Mr. Chair.

Chair Bernie Sanders:  Thank you very much, Mr. Isakson.  Ms. Bradley, thank you very much for your willingness to serve.  As Senator Isakson indicated, the position is enormously important.  We're seeing transition in the VA right now but I'm confident you're going to do a great job for us.  Okay.  And with that, if there are no other comments -- Okay?  Okay.

Leigh Bradley:  Thank you both.

Chair Bernie Sanders: This hearing is adjourned.

That was the entire hearing.

And it goes to how awful a Chair Bernie Sanders has been.

The position is important, the one Leigh Bradley is up for.

It's a shame the hearing couldn't have treated it as such.

And I'm sorry but I thought Socialists in the US led the call for transparency?

Where was the transparency in that hearing?

Bernie and Johnny going on about how they had spoken with the witness the day before?

Well good for them but did those conversations mean that there was no reason to have a conversation for the record?  No reason to question a witness publicly?

What was the point -- besides wasting time -- in having the witness sworn in if no one was going to ask her one damn question?

And with all the scandals in the VA, let's grasp that a lot of them happened because of people in positions of power.  No one thought this person or that would be inept or worse.

Hopefully, Leigh Bradley will be a huge success.

But with the problem in the VA, the Committee was required to ask questions.

They failed.

Veterans around the country have interest in this appointment and were looking to how the nominee would respond under questions.

But a candy ass, poorly led Committee refused to do its job.

This is the typical nonsense that has taken place over and over under Bernie Sanders' leadership.

There was never time, while he was Chair, to address serious issues or problems.

There was always time to explore acupuncture and other holistic medicines.

That's really all he ever made time for.

We're all so very sorry for Chair Sanders and the Committee that they were put out, that they're valuable time was shortened with the expectation that they'd do their damn job and hold a real hearing on a top post at the VA.

Going through the motions, that's all Bernie Sanders offered during his time as Chair of the Committee.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: What immunity agreement for US troops?"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Aging""
"Hejira"
"Mike Nichols body of work and fascination with the..."
"The Mamas and the Papas' The Papas & The Mamas (El..."
"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 - reflecting ..."
"Susan Faludi"
"A Hillary comic and TV"
"Barack's tantrums silence the media"
"Music and TV"
"Rebekah and The Originals"
"More problems for KKK Grand Dragon Lena Dunham"
"Poor Jane Fonda"
"Remember when Lily Tomlin pretended she was dating John Travolta?"
"Why does the Kennedy Center hate Latinas?"
"revenge's winter finale"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Barack's non plan for Iraq leads to fur...
• TV: The New Password
• Roundtable
• Film Classics of the 20th Century
• Caught with their whats out
• 10 best albums of 1968
• Video Confrontation
• This edition's playlist
• Veterans Call on Sen. Reid to Bring Suicide Preven...
• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 - reflecting ...
• Highlights
• 
  

"Look who's sick now"
"THIS JUST IN! A TEXT BOOK EXAMPLE OF KARMA!"

Look who's sick now

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

AFTER 6 YEARS OF GIVING AMERICANS HEART BURN, TURNS OUT FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O IS THE ONE WITH ACID REFLUX.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



"It is estimated that the VA will spend $1.3 billion over the next two years just on this hepatitis C treatment," Senator Mazie Hirono declared at Wednesday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

The issue was hepatitis C in the veterans community.  And it was one of two hearings the Senate committee held this week in the final month of the Committee.  Next January, new senators take office and the Senate will be under Republican control.  Longterm Ranking Member Richard Burr should transition over to Committee Chair with current Chair Bernie Sanders transferring to Ranking Member.

Democrats have controlled the Senate since the results of the November 2006 mid-terms.

During that time, Daniel Akaka and Patty Murray have been Committee Chair and now Vermont's Bernie Sanders.

A very wealthy corporation, Giliad, is getting extremely rich off the price of medications.  They refused to attend the hearing,



Committee Chair Bernie Sanders:  Prior to the developments of the new drugs from Giliad, the primary method for treating Hepatitis C was interferon -- an injectible medicine that has many side effects that are terribly painful for many patients.  Additionally, many patients required additional intervention including liver transplants.  These treatments were expensive.  According to research by Dr. John Gaetano of the University of Chicago who has special expertise in hepatitis, it is estimated the costs for a person with liver damage over a ten year period can exceed $270,000 and the average liver transplant in 2011 cost $577,100.  This brings us to the purpose of today's hearing -- the new treatments for Hepatitis C now on the market and the exorbitant price tag associated with them.  Gilead, the manufacturer of Sovaldi, is selling the drug at an astounding price of $84,000 for a twelve-week course of treatment, or about $1,000 per pill.  I had invited Gilead to testify today.  I had hoped they could share their perspective on the cost of their new hepatitis C drugs.  Maybe they could have explained to this Committee why they believe their pricing is fair and reasonable.  But unfortunately they declined our invitation because all of their executives who could have spoken on this issue are traveling internationally.  Just like any for-profit company, drug companies charge what they think the market will bear.  Gilead clearly made the calculation that they could charge excessive prices for this groundbreaking drug and that the federal government would pay.  And I get it -- companies are motivated to make a profit.  But Gilead is making profits in spades.  They purchased Pharmasset -- the original developers of Sovaldi -- for $11 billion and, according to some estimates, are expected to make more than $200 billion on the sales of the drug.  With numbers like these, we're not talking about a company looking to make ends meet -- or even fund their next great medical breakthrough.  So we must ask, how much is too much?



The issue of cost was at the heart of the hearing which consisted of two panels. The first panel was composed of the VA's Chief Consultant on Pharmacy Benefits Michael Valentino and the Director of HIV, Hepatitis C and Public Health Pathogens Programs Dr. David Ross.  The second panel was the president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman and the National Coalition on Health Care president John Rother.


Senator Hirono insisted the current spending on hepatitis C was "not sustainable.  It will strain VA resources at a time when veterans are increasing in number and complexity of conditions."

Her concerns included that hepatitis C was "three times higher" in the veteran population than in "the general population" and that "many people infected are unaware that they have it."  She also noted that 35 patients at Hawai's VA -- Hirono's home state -- have benefited from the new treatments.

But the new treatments, from Giliad, are very expensive.

Chair Bernie Sanders: Very interestingly, and maybe we can explore this in the second panel, Giliad is making this drug available to countries like Egypt which have a very serious problem with hepatitis C, my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong, that they are selling -- in this country, they are selling the product for $1000 a pill, in Egypt it is a few dollars a pill. Is that correct?  Do you know anything about that?

Dr Michael Valentino: I personally don't.  Dr. Ross might.

Chair Bernie Sanders: Dr. Ross, are you aware of that?

Dr. David Ross: I-I --

Chair Bernie Sanders: My understanding is it's ten dollars a pill.

Dr. David Ross:  I-I couldn't speak to the specifics of that.

Chair Bernie Sanders: Okay, we'll get more into that in the second panel.  Why do you think it's the case that they're selling it to a general American consumer who walks in for a thousand, they're selling it to a huge federal agency -- the VA, which treats more hepatitis patients than anyone else in the country -- at $540 but they're selling it in Egypt for $10?  How come they negotiated a better price than you did?

Dr. Michael Valentino:  I can't answer that question. I don't know what Giliad's business model is.  I don't know how that was able to -- able to be achieved.  Uhm, you know those -- A lot of other countries have different regulatory processes.

Chair Bernie Sanders:  They sure do. Which results in the United States paying the highest prices of all in the world for prescription drugs.  And this may be outside your portfolio in a sense but if the VA is going to spend -- I mean, we have a deficit and some of my colleagues don't like spending a whole lot of money on things -- if the VA is spending billions of dollars -- 1.3 now and maybe more later -- to treat one illness, is it fair to suggest that that will mean that we have less money available to take care of veterans needs in other areas?  Is that a fair supposition?


Dr. Michael Valentino: Well, we did -- we did ask for more money and-and-and so, uhm, VA is undergoing a lot of changes right now with, uh, --

Chair Bernie Sanders:  All that I'm asking, which I think is pretty common sense.  I mean there's a limit to how much -- I'm a strong supporter of the VA, would like to put more money into the VA, but there's a limit to what can be done.  All that I'm saying is that if you're spending billions of dollars in one area, common sense suggests that we may not be able to spend in others.  That may be a fair supposition?

Dr. Michael Valentino:  I would not disagree with that.

Nor on the second panel did John Rother.

This is not just a matter of a thousand dollars a pill.  This is a matter primarily of a drug that is potentially beneficial to three to five million people so it's not an orphan drug at all.  It's a drug that would be appropriate for a large number of Americans.  And, uh, the problem is the total cost of treatment, not so much the individual pill price. Inevitably as you suggest -- as your question earlier suggested, this kind of costs is going to force trade offs with other necessary treatment within the VA, within Medicaid, within prisons, within private health insurance.  We are seeing this every day today.  And, uh, it's-it's a deep concern because in many cases the services not delivered are the very preventative services that have the greatest return on investment and if we neglect those than we are just making the problem more difficult down the road. 



Let's stay with the first panel to note an exchange covering a few basics on hepatitis C.



Senator Mazie Hirono:  I think my series of questions deals with whether the marketplace really can -- is operating in a way where there really is more competition for different kinds of treatments that are effective and much less costly though is there a way to prevent hepatitis C?  Because once one is infected, there is a progression to the disease.  So what are we doing on the prevention side?

Dr. David Ross: Briefly, there is no vaccine for hepatitis C.  Transmission for most people occurred decades ago. There are about 20,000 or so new infections a year.  The number is actually going up -- almost entirely because of the sharing of needles from injection drug users.  So thinks that we are doing within VA is to -- and this is done within hepatitis C care -- help people with substance abuse disorders.  We also are doing things -- and again this is integrated with their medical care to try and reduce exposures that could also damage the liver -- particularly thinking of alcohol abuse.  And an integrated care approach is much more effective at getting people ready for treatment.  One brief anecdote, I have a patient who I saw yesterday who I started on methadone maintenance about six months ago and he is now ready for treatment. In other words he'll be able to reliably take the pills 

Senator Mazie Hirono:  So these prevention  methods that you are utilizing do they -- are they working?  I realize it's not that easy to determine whether something that you're doing is actually preventing --

Dr. David Ross:  I-I-I think yes.  I think the-the-the-the -- It's a matter of keeping people from getting it in the first place but it's also a question of getting people ready for treatment.  We're -- What we've done in VA has shown that if you take people who have these barriers to treatment because of other diseases -- frequently substance abuse or alcohol abuse -- and you give them integrated psycho-social care in the same clinic -- this is what has worked at Minneapolis VA and I should mention this is what was done at the Matsunaga VA in Honolulu -- they are more likely to complete therapy and be cured than people who don't have those problems in the first place would be who don't get that kind of supportive care.


But for most Americans with hepatitis C, the costs for the needed treatment are too high.

It doesn't have to be that way, as Robert Weismann explained:

Now some have held out hope that new treatments will lead to price competition or that hard bargaining by payers -- of which the VA is the best -- will be able to yield sufficient price reductions and I think that's misguided.  Based on prior experience, new drugs don't necessarily come in at a lower price.  In fact, they often come in at a higher price.  In general, brand name competitors try not to compete on price.  And when you have a starting point price of $84000 even if we have substantial reductions in price due to negotiations we're still going to be stuck with a super high price just because the starting point was so high.  However, we do have solutions available to us and really fundamental solutions. Now we should say -- I think it's correct, everything you say, Senator Burr about both the importance of innovation and looking at government policy.  The reason for this price level -- as both of you asked -- is a single thing which is Giliad has a monopoly.  Giliad doesn't have a market created monopoly, they've got a government granted monopoly, a patent monopoly, a monopoly that comes from other exclusivities. If we choose to address that monopoly through government policy -- since We The People gave the monopoly in the first place -- we can bring the price down.  And we know we can bring it down to less than 1% -- at least at the manufacturing level -- leaving aside whatever fair compensation we need to pay to Giliad because of the price reductions that already exist in developing countries as you referenced, Senator Sanders. Two methodologies we might pursue to reduce price.  One. we might have just government use of the product -- government use of the patent and other technologies -- in that case we could source the product to generic competitors and pay Giliad a royalty.  If we pay Giliad a royalty of five thousand dollars per patient, we'd actually still have cut the price overall by 90%.  We've got existing staturoty atuhority to do that under 28 USC Section 1498.  A different approach might be to look to buy out Giliad's patent all together.  We could do that in one way which would be to say we're just going to give Giliad as much money as we anticipate the company will make by virtue of it's patent monopoly.  Why would we do that?  Well we'd do that because we're already going to pay them that much money but we could then provide treatment to everyone whereas under the current system we're going to pay all that money and have rationing.  Now I wouldn't advocate doing that.  I think we can adjust down significantly what we would pay for a patent buyout but it is another method we might consider to provide treatment for all.




RECOMMENDED: "I Hate The War"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Thug Nouri forced to flee Lebanon"
"Idiot of the week"
" revenge - the good"
"Cup of Ramen in the Kitchen"
"Things to note"
"Great Billy Carter's Ghost!"
"The Washington Post is in a position to lecture?"
"The Mamas and the Papas' The Papas & The Mamas"
"Jean Smart: The Bargain Basement Judith Light rip-off"
"The failed promise of Kristen Wiig"
"Waist Deep In A Big Muddy -- or bye-bye Tugboat Crowley"
"That awful Ron Jacobs"
"Who will play his lovers?"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY AND HIS BOYS ON FILM!"

Who will play his lovers?

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS ABOUT TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A LOW BUDGET -- POSSIBLY STRAIGHT TO VIDEO -- FILM ABOUT HIS MEETING AND MARRYING MICHELLE.









WHILE THE ROLE OF MICHELLE HAS BEEN CAST, THE MALE ROLES HAVE NOT BEEN -- NOT BARRY O NOR ANY OF THE MANY MEN HE ALLEGEDLY ENGAGED IN ORAL SEX WITH.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




In one for Ripley's, Jean Sellmeyer Smith of Crowley has become the first person on the planet to prove it is possible to live without a brian.  Sellmeyer Smith managed this achievement and even documented it via a letter to the editors of the Advertiser.


Let's now quote from the historic document, "Our soldiers are home from Iraq. . ."


Sellmeyer Smith composed the letter after apparent non-stop exposure to the propaganda of MSNBC.


While proving it is capable to live without a brain, Sellmeyer Smith has also provided hours of laughter with her idiotic claim which was published on the same day as the Associated Press reported:


The US has reached an agreement with Iraq on privileges and immunities for the growing number of troops based in the country, helping in the fight against the Islamic State (Isis) militant group, the new US ambassador said on Thursday.
Stuart Jones said prime minister Haider al-Abadi has given assurances that US troops will receive immunity from prosecution.


Reached for comment, Sellmeyer Smith reportedly responded, "What do you expect from me, I'm just a mindless zombie in the Cult of St. Barack."

Being a zombie is being bit of whore.  You whore whatever's left of your name, sacrifice it on the temple alter to Barack Obama.  Being whores, people like Sellmeyer Smith?

They put their dirty, trashy name to anything.

That's how Sellmeyer Smith came to write:

Our soldiers are home from Iraq; Osama bin Laden is dead. In sharp contrast to the Bush years, the United States again leads the world in respected internationality.

That's how she came to write it a month after the editor of the Pekin Daily Times, Amy Gehrt, quoted Richard Brunt writing:

America is leading the world once again and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.


Oh, I get it, you take the first sentence and make it the second one and you change the second one from "America" to "United States" and then, presto, it's almost as if you're plagiarized words were your own?

What is it?

It's Astroturf. (And the Shreveport Times printed the letter at the end of last month.  The exact same letter.)

We used to mock, on the left we did, all the crazy love slaves of Bully Boy Bush who used to copy and paste the same sentiments and send them out to newspapers across the land.

Like a nasty venereal disease, Astroturf has spread to the segments of the left -- the brain dead and whorish segments.


In the November 10, 2014 Iraq snapshot, we dealt with Richard Brunt's lies about US troops being out of Iraq:


Well just because you're letting the precum pool in your pants doesn't mean you need to share your erotic fantasies with the rest of us.

Brunt's so busy jizzing while moaning Barack, he actually writes, "Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq."

Indeed.

For example, he brought these two home last month -- in body bags.








That's Lance Cpl. Sean P. Neal (photo from Facebook).   We noted his death in October 25th snapshot.



That's Cpl Jordan Spears (photo from Marine Corps).  Last month, he was reclassified as the first death in 'Operation Inherent Resolve.'




Apparently, Brunt's been too busy jacking off to light bondage fantasies of Barack disciplining him to pay attention to actual events in the real world -- including the fact that 'Operation Inherent Resolve' has already claimed the lives of 2 American service members.

Jean Sellmeyer Smith is actually a bigger idiot and a bigger whore than Brunt.  When he wrote his bulls**t, those two were the only US service members dead in the latest phase of the never ending war.

But this week, DoD issued the following:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Release No: NR-599-14
December 02, 2014

DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty

  The Department of Defense announced today the death of an Airman who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
Capt. William H. DuBois, 30, of New Castle, Colorado, died Dec. 1 when his F-16 aircraft crashed near a coalition air base in the Middle East. He was assigned to the 77th Fighter Squadron, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.

For more information media may contact the 20th Fighter Wing Public Affairs Office at 803-895-2019.  

In the early days of the Iraq War, I used to be left dumbfounded by the whorish efforts of Bully Boy Bush's love slaves to ignore reality in order to pimp their lover boy.

The Cult of St. Barack is no different.

They will whore.

They will lie.

They will look the other way.

Anything to avoid calling out Barack.

Barack Obama's time as president has demonstrated whorishness exists on all sides of the political spectrum.  Long gone (and buried) are the days when I could kid myself that being on the left was a sign that we were smarter.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Veterans Call on Sen. Reid to Bring Suicide Preven..."
"Iraq: government continues to target civilians, vi..."
"The never-ending sexism of NPR"
"Silly and useless Jane Fonda"
"The Tweet that says it all"
"The spying never ends"
"political barbie mia farrow"
"Stop the homophobia"
"See, they can smile"
"The cronyism never ends"
"Tea Leoni looks awful"
"Barry O's shocking winter finale"
"THIS JUST IN! NOBODY DOES DRAMA LIKE SHONDA RHIMES!"

Barry O's shocking winter finale

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

FRIDAY, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O IS SCHEDULED TO MAKE A STUNNING ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WILL SHOCK THE NATION.

EVER SINCE SHONDA RHIMES DECIDED TO USE HER WINTER BREAK WITH HANDLING NARRATIVE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, IT'S BEEN ONE TWISTER AFTER ANOTHER.

BUT.

FRIDAY.

WILL.

SHOCK.

THE.

NATION.

AS BARRY O ANNOUNCES HIS NOMINEE FOR THE NEXT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS THE FINAL 2 MINUTES OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT WHERE BARRY O ANNOUNCES THAT NOT ONLY IS IT JOHN KERRY BUT THAT HE'S ALSO DECIDED TO DECLARE WAR ON MARS.

AND DON'T MISS THE STUNNING MOUTH-ON-MOUTH KISS THAT WILL END THE PRESS CONFERENCE.

BARRY O'S WINTER FINALE.

THIS FRIDAY.

ON THE ROSE GARDEN.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today, CENTCOM announced, "In Iraq, four airstrikes near Mosul destroyed five ISIL bunkers, two ISIL-occupied buildings, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL fighting position and two heavy weapons. In addition, those airstrikes also struck a large ISIL unit and a tactical ISIL unit. Near Ramadi, two airstrikes destroyed four ISIL vehicles. Near Tal Afar, an airstrike destroyed an excavator and struck a tactical ISIL unit."

The US-led bombing campaign against the Islamic State has killed many and, though the US government would like to pretend otherwise, that includes many civilians.  Chris Woods (Foreign Policy) reports:

 The United States is not planning to grant compensation for civilians killed in airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, Foreign Policy has learned, despite claims by credible groups that at least 100 noncombatants may already have died in the 16 weeks of U.S.-led bombings.
The decision, confirmed by a senior spokesman for U.S. Central Command (Centcom), the military command organization in charge of the air war, marks a significant departure from recent conflicts, in which payments have regularly been made to civilians negatively impacted by U.S. military actions.  


What a proud moment for Barack Obama.  Even Bully Boy Bush's administration compensated some for Iraqi civilians killed by US military actions.

Let's stay with the US government for a bit.  At the State Dept press briefing today, spokesperson Marie Harf noted, "The Secretary [of State John Kerry]  is on travel in Europe today. This morning in Brussels he participated in the Counter-ISIL Coalition Meeting at NATO, had meetings with EU High Representative Mogherini and Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi, participated in a meeting on Libya with European foreign ministers and the EU, a meeting on the U.S.-EU Energy Ministerial, and he held a press availability which I’m sure many of you saw. Tonight he arrives in Basel, Switzerland for meetings at the OSCE, the first of which will be with Swiss Foreign Minister Burkhalter."

That Counter-ISIL Coalition meeting?  John Kerry wandered around the topic in public remarks to the press today in Brussels:



Secretary John Kerry:  [T]oday was an opportunity for representatives from about 60 members of the anti-ISIL coalition to come together, share their views, receive updates on coalition efforts, make suggestions about the roadmap ahead, and discuss as carefully as possible the pluses and minuses of the strategy engaged and what needs to be done to accomplish our goals going forward.
It was absolutely clear in the comments of everybody, particularly the prime minister of Iraq and his team, that we have made already significant progress in two and a half months. But we also acknowledge there is a lot more work yet to be done. Daesh is still perpetrating terrible crimes, but there was a consensus that the momentum which it had exhibited two and a half months ago has been halted, that it has been forced to modify its tactics – and some of those modifications severely hampering their ability to operate in the way that they were, certainly – that their hold on territory has been challenged already, and their finances have been strained, and in almost every media market that exists, and certainly within the region, their message is being denounced. Their message of hate is being challenged in public meeting places, in mosques across the globe. This clearly represents a multifaceted effort, which is precisely what we defined in the earliest days of suggesting that we would build a coalition and the coalition would take on Daesh.
Now, while airstrikes may capture the headlines – and there have been more than 1,000 of them thus far – this is far more than simply a military coalition. And it will not be successful, we all agree, if it were to rely on military alone, which it does not. Destroying Daesh is going to require defeating the ideology – the funding, the recruitment, and the devastation that they’ve been able to inflict on people in the region. And these are the areas that were really the primary focus of today’s discussion.
During this morning’s meeting, we reviewed the progress in each of our five lines of effort and came together in issuing a joint statement, all countries signing on, that underscores our unity and our firm support for our partners and our absolute determination to succeed. Participants noted the gains that we have made across all of the lines of effort – defeating ISIL on the battlefield, restricting its finances, enacting laws to restrict the flow of foreign fighters, and countering its toxic ideology.
The long-term success of the effort in Iraq is key to the success of the coalition. And today we heard directly from Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi, whose government yesterday revealed and reached a long-sought agreement, a landmark oil deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government. The prime minister also provided an update on the fight against Daesh in Iraq and on his broader reform agenda, including an executive order that he just issued to begin important changes in the criminal justice system of Iraq. Nothing will do more to defeat Daesh than an Iraq that is united and has more representative and effective security forces.
Now, obviously there’s a lot more work ahead. But the prime minister has taken steps to unite the country, including outreach to Sunni tribes. He has taken steps to root out corruption and to reform the Iraqi Security Forces and to take on the threat that Daesh represents. I think it’s fair to say that all of the foreign ministers, ambassadors, representatives who were there today came away impressed by Prime Minister Abadi and by what he has accomplished today, which is the down payment on the roadmap that he laid out for the future.


I like John Kerry -- supported his presidential run in 2004 -- but sometimes he's just too pathetic for words.

Should of been his crowning moment of the year today.  It's been a bad year for John.  Not like when he was in California and shot off his mouth thereby destroying any hopes of a 2008 run for president.  That was weeks of bad.  Weeks of embarrassment.  2014 has just been him forgetting he's Secretary of State and not of Defense.

He's gone crazy trying to play administration tough guy.

Today, he finally did something that was actually a job for the Secretary of State.

Despite the press traveling with him, the foreign ministries meet-up today received very little attention from the press.

And that's his fault.

When he had the microphone today addressing the press, he couldn't stay on topic.

I don't give a damn what he thinks about Libya or China.  We didn't include it.

I used to think, "Some day John will find the self-confidence to stop trying to show off and just focus on the task at hand."  The closer he gets to death, the less likely he'll ever arrive at a moment of self-confidence or self-awareness.

He has the world's attention for one brief moment and can speak for the administration and finally note something on the diplomatic front with regards to Iraq but that's for people who want to do their job.


It's not good enough for a John Kerry who wants to overwhelm you.

He killed his own moment.

That's on him.

He let down the administration because he couldn't stop strutting.

His task today was simple, to stay on topic (Iraq) and assure the world that the US had a diplomatic plan -- something in the works that would help bring Iraq to the "political solution" that Barack Obama has repeatedly said was the only answer for Iraq.

That was what was needed from the Secretary of State.

Kerry couldn't pull it off because he couldn't stay focused.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"12-4-14 IAVA holds day of action for passage of th..."
"No outrage still over Lebanon kidnapping a woman a..."
"Joint Statement Issued by Partners at the Counter-..."
"Black Agenda Report is going all niche programming"
"Stalker"
"revenge: himbo's need to disrobe"
"Arrow does the better cross-over episode"
"Lendman tells the truth"
"Soundgarden"
"The non-apology"
"Jane Hamsher, the ultimate fake"
"Thanks Firedoglake and all the others"
"The never-recovering economy (and its victims)"
"He's a pooh eater on top of everything else"
"THIS JUST IN! DAVE GROHL AND HIS DETACHABLE PENIS!"

He's a pooh eater on top of everything else

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

POOH EATER DAVE GROHL HAS SUFFERED FOR YEAR BECAUSE HE LOOKS LIKE A REALLY UGLY GIRL.

BUT HE HASN'T LET THAT OR HIS HUGE LACK OF TALENT GET HIM DOWN.

NOT ONLY DOES HE FRONT A WORTHLESS POP BAND THAT PRETENDS TO BE ROCK, HE ALSO WANTS TO TALK IRAQ.

SEE FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O ANNOUNCED HE WAS SENDING MORE U.S. TROOPS INTO IRAQ AND POOH EATING GROHL WAS JUST HAPPY TO MASSAGE BARRY O'S CROTCH AND ASK HIM EASY QUESTIONS ABOUT MUSIC.

GROHL'S BEEN A BACK STABBING BITCH FOR YEARS -- AT LEAST SINCE THE DAY HE DISCOVERED HIS TINY ONE INCH PENIS WAS DETACHABLE.




FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Well I'm learning
It's peaceful
With a good dog and some trees
Out of touch with the breakdown 
Of this century
They're not going to fix it up
Too easy
-- "Electricity," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her For The Roses


Big News Networks salivates, "In a significant development, the Lebanese army has arrested one of the wives of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr Al Bakr Al Baghdadi near the border with Syria when they tried to enter the country using fake identity."  The woman is named in some reports as Saja Al Dulaimi.  Some identify her as a Syrian, some as an Iraqi.  All say she was arrested with a child -- some say a boy, some say a girl.  Though only reported today, Gulf Daily News says the arrests took place "10 days ago."

In Iraq today, there are many problems.

One of the biggest is the sense of lawlessness.  For Sunnis, that means their relatives disappear in the so-called justice system.  Security forces show up to arrest Laith al-Mutlaq -- with or without an arrest warrant -- and Laith isn't home but his grandmother is or his wife or his brother or his child or some other relative.  So the security forces haul that person off.

Where did they get that was okay?

Because US military commanders spent the first years of the Iraq War acting like thugs by basically kidnapping women married to Iraqi militants they were seeking.

That was illegal and unethical.

And it set the new Iraqi government down this road.

Very few people objected in real time or since.

The woman who is one of the wives of al-Baghdidi?

If she's done something herself, she should be arrested.

There's no way in the world the child has done anything.

It's doubtful the woman's done anything illegal.


(And in the midst of Barack's amnesty plan, don't try to pull the nonsense of 'she was trying to enter Lebanon illegally!')

The child?  Boy or girl, a DNA test was performed.

I'm doubting seriously that the mother gave permission for that test.

That's another violation.

You can try to pretty it up all you want but these thug actions that should be called out.

If you're not getting it, listen to the boasting that the Oman Tribune reports on:

A Lebanese security source said the arrest was “a powerful card to apply pressure” in negotiations to secure the release of 27 members of the Lebanese security forces captured by militants in August near the Syrian border – a view shared by other Lebanese officials who confirmed the arrest. 


What's taking place is a kidnapping.

These are thug actions.

The US government needs to condemn these actions but it won't.

It will, however, go out of its way to attack the Islamic State for kidnapping women.

I don't care who the woman married, I don't care who she sleeps with.

Unless and until she's broken the law herself, she shouldn't be detained.

Anyone detaining her without just cause based on her actions is a thug who is practicing kidnapping.

This is not acceptable and it is not normal.

The AP attempts to normalize it with paragraphs like this one:

If their identities are confirmed, Lebanon may use the pair as bargaining chips to win the release of soldiers and police taken hostage by the terrorists in cross-border attacks earlier this year.

If tomorrow,  Sarah al-Assam kidnaps Michelle Obama because her husband was killed in one of Barack's Drone War attacks in Lebanon, you better believe the press will express outrage.

And they should.

By the same token whatever Saja Al Dulaimi's husband has done is his responsibility.

If she's done nothing and the government of Lebanon is kidnapping her and attempting to use her hostage status as a bargaining chip, that is illegal and it is unethical and it must be called out.

Refusal to do so?

We've already seen how this ends.

It became normal in Iraq because so very few of us had the guts to call it out.

You either call out what's being done to Saja Al Dulaimi.or you accept that it's now the normal.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"NESRI"
"Big announcement from the Council of Ministers -- "
"Phil Ochs had all the guts Michael Franti lacks"
"Arrow is a power bottom, who knew?"
"Punk Ass Michael Franti"
"Michael Franti the fake ass"
"revenge - oh, jack"
"Liar Michael Franti gets exposed on video"
"The lack of authenticity"
"Must see video"
"Meet the new Milli Vanilli: Michael Franti"
"The Mindy Project slowly improves"
"He likes to spend"
"THIS JUST IN! HE SPENDS THE MONEY OF OTHERS!"

He likes to spend

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O CAN'T CREATE JOBS.

HE CAN'T FIX THE ECONOMY.

BUT HE CAN SPEND!

HE CAN SPEND AND SPEND AND SPEND!

IN HIS TERMS SO FAR, HE'S INCREASED U.S. DEBT BY OVER 70%!

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, GO BIG OR GO HOME!  GO BULLS! OR WHATEVER SPORT PEOPLE WATCH THIS TIME OF YEAR!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Let's start in the US where two people don't have a grip on the facts: Jason Ditz and Medea Benjamin.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) argues the US focus keeps shifting with regards to the Islamic State.

That's a solid observation.

This isn't:


At the start of the war, Mount Sinjar was the clear focus, and the conflict was even couched as a humanitarian intervention specifically for the refugees there. When the refugee situation turned out to be dramatically overstated, the focus shifted toward ISIS in Iraqi Kurdistan and then Syria.

Mount Sinjar?

Never solved.  Yazidis are still held hostage -- at last count, it was 400 families.

The US didn't rescue anyone.  Those who were rescued by the Peshmerga (elite Kurdish force).

In October, Susan Rice went on Meet The Press.  Pressed to cite a 'success' for the White House in Iraq, she declared it was the rescue of the hostages on Mount Sinjar.

Less than 36 hours later, it was revealed that thousands of Yazidis remained hostages on Mount Sinjar.

Antiwar.com could have run with that.

Except it's the home of the pig-headed male.

I am not 100% right.

I'm wrong often.

When I am, I say so.

The head of Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo, decided to mock the Yazidis and their plight.

And that became the default position of Antiwar.com.

We pointed out here that nothing was going to be accomplished by Raimondo's nonsense except turning people off to what was being dubbed an "isolationist" position.  The American press wanted more war and was already ridiculing and admonishing those of us against more war on Iraq.

And then comes Justin playing into every stereotype of Ugly American.

Children are being terrorized -- as were adults -- and Justin's mocking it.

Nothing did more damage to the position of 'antiwar' than Justin's bulls**t.

He wanted to stop further war?

Well his ridicule of those suffering wasn't the way to do it.

For those making up their minds and those with a stance that was weak, the response to Justin's mocking of the suffering of the Yazidis was to recoil in disgust.

He did real damage to the 'antiwar' group.  (I belong to the peace movement.)

Justin staked out a position and he's too pigheaded, even now, to admit he was wrong.

This attitude?  It's not antiwar.

It's exactly why the world has so many wars.

People stake out a position and refuse to modify it or to admit they were wrong.

Justin can pretend to be antiwar all he wants but the reality is his mocking of the Yazidis did real damage.

Jason Ditz could probably write the truth, but this is Jason who praised Nouri al-Maliki, remember?

The thug and War Criminal was hero worshiped by Scott Horton (dee jay, not Harper's writer and college professor) and when Jason was a guest on the show, he'd join in on the grooviness of Nouri.

Even though Ned Parker had already exposed the torture chambers Nouri was running, even though Nouri had already launched a witch hunt on Iraqi's LGBT community and much more.

Let's move over to Medea Benjamin.  At the Guardian, she has a column noting the press' inability to question the war claims of the White House.  That's a good topic.  It's one we cover repeatedly.  Medea points out how fear was used to frighten people -- yeah, we covered that months ago.  Thanks for catching up, Medea.

We've also been covering the killing of civilians in the US-led air bombing campaign.

We've noted the inability of the western media to cover those deaths and how, if they were being covered, some of the public support for the bombings -- support in the US -- would erode.  So by all means, Medea, please work your way over to that part of the topic real soon.

Medea writes:

Day after day, night after night, the press relied on propaganda from both Isis and the US government to whip up fear and a thirst for revenge in the American public. Gruesome beheading videos distributed by Isis were played over and over. The media not only regurgitated official US messages but packaged them better than the government itself ever could. 

What is she saying, what does she mean?

We've covered this.

The US press did not cover all the beheadings.  They only cared about Americans and the first death horrified them because of their own huge egos and vanity run amok.


Once upon a time, when the press was supposed to strive for objectivity and to be impartial, there were questions about women reporters and abortion.  Could women cover the topic and be impartial?

Regardless of what camp you fall into on that question (I don't think most people impartial on the topic -- I'm firmly pro-choice), the reality is the press is not impartial.

Steven Sotloff and James Foley got attention -- got round the clock attention -- from the US media because they were reporters.

You did not, as a news consumer, get coverage of those beheadings.

You got obsessive cries from a self-interested group that doesn't give a damn when it's an aid worker beheaded by the Islamic State.

We made that comment in real time, we were correct as demonstrated by the deaths that followed and the lack of media coverage of them.

The press loves war, no question.

But the beheadings resulted in overheated 'coverage' that was nonstop and the reason for that was that the press was having a panic attack, a guttural cry of, "It could have been me!"


When that happens, when the media makes themselves the story, it's not just embarrassing, it's bad journalism.

If Stoloff and Foley's lives (and deaths) mattered (and I believe they did), then so did the others who were beheaded but were reduced to a single sentence in a generic report because they weren't reporters.

There was no grand conspiracy (unless Medea's arguing that the White House gave orders to the Islamic State to kill the two reporters).

The deaths just played into the US press' own vanity and they went crazy with it.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"All the propaganda"
"Hejira"
"Miller Statement on Firing of VA Scandal’s Central..."
"Secretary of Defense . . ."
"On the left, we need to lose the attitude"
"State of Affairs"
"Exodus"
"On sitcoms"
"Parks and Recreation sucks"
"Are there any Blacks on CBS?"
"state of affairs: who is syd?"
"Fighting imperialism, come hell and high water"
"Artificial Intelligence"
"Michelle renders the verdict"
"THIS JUST IN! SHE POPS HIS BUBBLE!"

Michelle renders the verdict

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

SATURDAY, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SHOWED HIS FACE AT A BOOKSTORE AND BOUGHT 17 TITLES -- INCLUDING A HEALTHY SELECTION OF CHILDREN'S BOOKS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY, FIRST LADY MICHELLE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "HOW WONDERFUL.  WE ARE ALL SO THRILLED THAT BARRY HAS LEARNED TO READ."




FROM THE TCI WIRE:




In a letter to the editors of the Houston Chronicle, Carl Schiro asks a question no one seems able to answer:

Regarding "Corruption hobbles Iraq's military efforts" (Page A1, Monday), why is our government still sending our troops and money to such a corrupt country?


Can anyone answer that question?  The article Schiro's referring to is David D. Kirkpatrick (New York Times via Hamilton Spectator) report on Iraqi forces:

                             

The Iraqi military and police forces had been so thoroughly pillaged by their own corrupt leadership that they all but collapsed this spring in the face of the advancing militants of the Islamic State — despite roughly $25 billion worth of U.S. training and equipment over the past 10 years and far more from the Iraqi treasury.                         

Now maybe if there had been work on the political solution -- the one US President Barack Obama has spent months giving lip service to -- corruption could have been dealt with.

Instead, Barack's planning a work-around.  Francesca Chambers (Daily Mail) notes:

The U.S. military has decided against rebuilding the entire Iraqi army and will instead focus on training a handful of brigades to take on Islamic radicals, initiating a shift in the Pentagon's decade-long approach to the handling the country.

'The idea is, at least in the first instance, to try and build a kind of leaner, meaner Iraqi army,' a senior U.S. official told the Washington Post.

Officials who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity said the military plans to create nine new Iraqi army brigades of up to 45,000 light-infantry soldiers over the course of the next two months and team them with other Kurdish and Shiite fighters. 

So the problem is being labeled as "corruption" and the US government thinks the way to handle/address that is to just make smaller units?

That 'solution' -- laughable as it is -- certainly makes more sense than the Iraqi government's response.


Michael Gregory (Reuters) reports that Minister of Finance Hoshyar Zebari has stated that the military will take up about 23% of the proposed budget for 2015 and he's also calling "for deep-rooted reforms to stamp out corruption in a military that collapsed in the face of an Islamic State advance."

Yes, by all means, put nearly a quarter of your annual budget into a military machine known for its corruption.

Don't root out the corruption, just toss more money at it.

A quarter of your budget, for example.

Since the US isn't planning on any major actions until at least February, there's nore than enough time to address graft in the Iraqi military.

In fact, doing so would expose a mountain of corruption because as members of this political party or slate go down, you can rest assured they will take others down with them.  Meaning?  A State of Law military official goes down for corruption, they'll rat out someone in the Ministry of Transportation and so on and so on.

Corruption is rampant in Iraq.


That's why Transparency International ranks Iraq the 171st least transparent country or territory on a list of 177 for 2013.  This is not a new development.  In 2009, Barack was sworn in as president.  Transparency International's finds for 2009?  Iraq was ranked the 176th least transparent. (For those who want to trumpet the 'success' in Iraq moving from 176 to 171, please note that the 2009 list included 180 listings.They dropped three.  So Iraq really just moved one spot.)

In 2009, Patrick Cockburn (at CounterPunch) pointed out, "Iraq is the world’s premier kleptomaniac state. According to Transparency International the only countries deemed more crooked than Iraq are Somalia and Myanmar, while Haiti and Afghanistan rank just behind. In contrast to Iraq, which enjoys significant oil revenues, none of these countries have much money to steal."  Bill Van Auken (World Socialist Web Site) also noted the Transparency International 2009 report:

In relation to Iraq, the report found rampant corruption as well, with corrupt government officials operating with impunity. It cited a recent study by the Bertelsmann Foundation stating that in Iraq “non-security institutions remain weak and debilitated. The Iraqi leadership faces many structural constraints on governance, such as a massive brain drain, a high level of political division, and extreme poverty.”

Across the political spectrum, the corruption has been noted repeatedly and consistently.  For example, early this year the right-wing Heritage Foundation noted of Iraq:

Corruption is pervasive at all levels of government. There are widespread reports of demands by officials for bribes, mismanagement of public funds, payments to “ghost” employees, salary skimming, and nepotism. Although judicial independence is guaranteed in the constitution, judges are subject to immense political and sectarian pressure and are viewed by the public as corrupt or ineffective. Property rights are not well protected.


And if you need a government source, here's the US Embassy in Baghdad:

Corruption remains a salient feature of the political and economic landscape of Iraq and poses and threatens its full economic and social development.  Mitigating corruption’s corrosive effects on Iraq’s reconstruction requires continued USG engagement – both in terms of programs and in terms of bringing political and diplomatic pressure to bear on Iraqi leaders. 


With all the above in mind, let's return to the question that opens Carl Schiro's letter to the editors of the Houston Chronicle:

Regarding "Corruption hobbles Iraq's military efforts" (Page A1, Monday), why is our government still sending our troops and money to such a corrupt country?


It's not a hidden factor.  In June, Richard Engel (NBC News -- link is text and video) interviewed Iraqi forces and they repeatedly cited corruption as the country's "biggest enemy."

And as Patrick Cockburn (at the Independent) pointed out last year, the corruption was predicted at the start of the Iraq War:

A few months before the invasion, an Iraqi civil servant secretly interviewed in Baghdad made a gloomy forecast. “The exiled Iraqis are the exact replica of those who currently govern us… with the sole difference that the latter are already satiated since they have been robbing us for the past 30 years,” he said. “Those who accompany the US troops will be ravenous.”
Many of the Iraqis who came back to Iraq after the US-led invasion were people of high principle who had sacrificed much as opponents of Saddam Hussein. But fast forward 10 years and the prediction of the unnamed civil servant about the rapacity of Iraq’s new governors turns out to have been all too true. As one former minister puts it, “the Iraqi government is an institutionalised kleptocracy”.

Cockburn spent the last years worshipping the Shi'ites and spitting on the Sunnis so it's really hard for him to name names when covering the continued disintegration of Iraq.

But there are names to be named.

Chief among them Nouri al-Maliki.

In 2006, the White House demanded Nouri al-Maliki be named prime minister (the Iraqi Parliament wanted Ibraham al-Jafaari).  In 2010, the White House demanded Nouri get a second term and, having lost the election, the White House offered a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement) to give Nouri a second term.

Which means from spring 2006 to summer 2014, Nouri al-Maliki ruled Iraq.

And corruption thrived.

This despite Nouri insisting he would take on corruption -- repeatedly insisting.  But it's kind of hard to do that when you're part of the corruption.  Pennies found in sofa cushions don't buy all the sports cars Nouri's son zips around London in nor did they buy the swank home.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Continued violence, corruption and no budget..."
"Strong truth teller, strong woman"
"Got A Vacation To Take Care Of First"
"natalie wood"
"Stevie Nicks' 24 Karat Gold"
"John Byrne Cooke's book on Janis"
"Leftovers?"
"Idiot of the week: Joel Wing"
"One review Christopher Nolan will cringe over"
"If you're looking for a great read . . ."
"Dan Bacher buys his Depends at Wal-Mart"
"That awful Interstellar"
"He calls it a win"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O FINDS THE SILVER LINING!"