Monday, October 24, 2011

Drama Queen Danny

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

IN BREAKING NEWS, SICKOFITRADLZ REVEALS THAT DANNY SCHECHTER'S HAVING ANOTHER PUBLIC MELTDOWN.

THE ONE TIME MEDIA CRITIC TURNED PROFESSIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CUM DUMP -- YEAH, WE SAID IT -- MAINTAINS HIS E-MAILS HAVE BEEN HACKED. WHICH MEANS IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR MAY NOT HAVE. IT'S DANNY SCHECHTER WHO USED TO CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT IRAQ AND EVEN MADE A MOVIE ABOUT IT THAT OTHER DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKERS MADE FUN OF BUT DANNY THOUGHT HE COULD MAKE A FEW BUCKS OFF THE WAR.

PROFITEER!

HE RAN FROM THE WAR FAR FASTER THAN A MAN OF HIS SIZE WOULD NORMALLY BE EXPECTED TO MOVE.

NOW HE IS INSISTING HIS E-MAIL HAS BEEN HACKED AND LASHING OUT AT OTHERS WHO HE JUST KNOWS ARE RESPONSIBLE.

MORE THAN LIKELY, IF ANYONE HAS BEEN IN HIS E-MAILS, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT PIG-BOI WAS CHOWING DOWN AT THE SIZZLER AND FELL ASLEEP ON HIS THE BONES OF HIS CHUCK ROUND, BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TALK IN HIS SLEEP AND REVEAL HIS PASSWORD.

TRY A LOW FAT DIET, PIG BOI, AND LESS DRAMA. IT WILL PROBABLY LET YOU LIVE LONGER AND GRASP THAT THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN READING YOUR RANTINGS PASSED OFF AS A MEDIA CRITIQUE WOULD BE READING YOUR E-MAILS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The enigma today is Michael S. Schmitt. Is he being ironic? Tongue in cheek? An idiot savant? Or just so busy whoring he doesn't even realize what he's writing? Maybe he's channeling?
I can't decide
I don't know
Which way to go?
The more you learn
The less you know
Which way to go?
Some follow blind
And never know
Which way to go?
To lead you need some place to go
Which way to go?
-- "Fiction" written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Dog Eat Dog album
Fiction. It sold the illegal war, it kept it going and even now it abounds. Are they all that stupid or they just dirty whores who were to ugly to work the streets so they took to newsrooms? The Honolulu Star-Adviser embarrasses itself with an editorial claiming the end is in sight for all but 150 or so "soldiers" who will "secure the American Embassy in Baghdad" -- will come back to that number later in the snapshot. Amy Goodman's been lying for years -- this is the 'journalist' who sold tickets to the Barack inaugural bash to raise money for her show, so much for any pretense of objectivity or even distance from the loud mouth who loved to quote I.F. Stone on not getting too close to those in power. In her headlines, she's less than honest. Then she puts a Gulf War veteran (90s Iraq War) on to lie about the Iraq War. He's with Occupy Lousiville and, if anything, the so-called 'leaderless' spirit of OWS is demonstrating there are a lot of people who require an education center in these encampments. They're far from alone. Is there a reason for Harvard's Nieman Foundation to exist?
Gilbert Cranberg's post argues that it shouldn't. Cranberg feels the need to pretend to bark about the war at Nieman's Watchdog Blog to . . . ask the serious and needed questions about the current White House presentation?
No, to drop back nine years to 2002 and 'cover' what was already covered some time ago and covered in depth. Why do governmetn lie?
Because they know they can get away with it. When you think of all the little whores on the left who've pretended they respected I.F. Stone and yet you see the work they produce, you're left with the impression that it must be some sort of 'I respect I.F. Stone, I just don't want to be like I.F. Stone.' Message received.
And the reasons governemts lie is because they know they'll get away with it. The current administration, for example, knows that 'brave' watch doggery today will be people dropping back to 2002 and listing the lies of the previous administration. Barack says the Iraq War is over and that all US forces are coming home. The press runs with that without examination and ignores his own comment indicating negotations continue -- a comment made clear on Friday in the second White House press conference, the one Denis McDonough spoke in.
Elusive dreams and vague desires
Fanned to fiery needs by deadly deeds
In falling empires
Fiction
Truth
Fiction
Truth
Fiction
Truth
Fiction
Fiction of the diplomat
Fiction of the critic
Fiction of the Pollyana and the cynic
Fiction of the coward
Fiction ofthe hero
Fiction of the monuments reduced to zero
-- "Fiction" written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Dog Eat Dog album
The New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt wants you to know that he used to cover sports and, in sports, you either win or lose. And he just doesn't understand why it's not the same with his current assignment.
Okay, let's bite. If you were covering sports, Schmidt, and you were covering performance ehancement drugs in sports -- a beat you were familiar with -- if it was announced that all US baseball players were no longer taking drugs and you knew better, what would the hook of your story be?
Schmidt knows the truth and mentions it as an aside in paragraph 12 ("both countries said they would continue to discuss training options") but goes on for 17 more paragraphs without ever again mentioning it.
Maybe Schmidt should be less concerned about whether officials admit to wins or losses and more concerned that the average American news consumer has no clue that negotiations are not over? Maybe, in fact, that would make for an actual report? Again, if he needs to drop back to sports, if the impression was that steroid use stopped because of remarks by the Commissioner of Baseball declared so or gave the impression that was so and Schmidt knew otherwise, seems like that would be his big story.
We could do nothing but link to all the outlets and gas bags claiming that negotiations ended and are no more and blah, blah, blah and that could be the entire snapshot. Strange that reporter Schmidt doesn't consider that a narrative in need of correction.
Again, the mistaken belief that negotiations have ended has been promoted by the press. It's out there and so many people -- some misguided, some natural idiots, some dirtly little whores -- are repeating it. And Niemen's Watchdog Blog wants to whine to us about lies from 2002? Really?
That's why governments lie. They know they'll get away with it. They know gas bags will either be whores or cowards and refuse to call out the current lies. Maybe, like Michael S. Schmidt, they'll mention it as a tiny aside -- a partial sentence in a 29 paragraph report -- or maybe they'll just vanish it completely. And in the process the public will be ever less informed.
That's journalism?
That's what the role of the press is supposed to be?
They should all be ashamed of themselves. A press that, as Rebecca rightly points out, confuses itself for a public relations agency, isn't really a functional press -- let alone an accurate one.
Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki spoke publicly about ongoing negotiations. Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reported that Nouri spoke Saturdayy about how excited he was that "all" US troops would be leaving Iraq and how US "trainers" are needed by Iraq and that discussions will continue on that. Like the White House, Nouri's always drawn a false line between "trainers" and soldiers. So Nouri expects a "full" withdrawal of US soldiers and he's also expecting to be able to include US "trainers" after the end of 2011. Al Sabaah quoted him stating that it's "natural" to have US trainers in Iraq. How will the number be determined? He says by the weapons purchasing contracts Iraq signs. Dar Addustour reports that Nouri claims he and Barack did not discuss the issue of the US Embassy "and immunity" on their tele-conference (it's Nouri, meaning they may have or they may not have) but tha the US embassy will be similar to other embassies in Iraq. Yeah, right. Where's a flying shoe tossed in Nouri's direction when you need it? While declaring the Status Of Forces Agreement dead, he noted that the Strategic Framework remains alive and "open" and that it can be altered and modified. Where's the US coverage of that? Oh, why do we even ask at this late date. The US press clearly exists to misinform. Too many lies and distortions for it to be accidental.

The article quotes Moqtada al-Sadr declaring that he has learned the US Embassy in Baghdad plans to increase its employee numbers from 5,000 to 15,000. And Al Mada reported Moqtada called Saturday for the Parliament to hold an emergency session to address withdrawal and what's taking place (he doesn't appear to believe that is withdrawal). This morning Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported Moqtada got his wish and the special session would be taking place today. A statement from Speaker of Parliament Osama Najaifi's office notes that the session is at the request of the al-Sadr bloc but avoids other details. The National Alliance's Rafie Abdul-Jabbar states that the issues will include Barack Obama's speech on withdrawal (al-Sadr doesn't see it as withdrawal, which is why he called for the session), the drop in the price of oil, oil revenues being allocated for the people and the bombing of Iraq by Turkey.

Over the weekend, John Glaser (Antiwar.com) notes, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will continue negotiating with the US on a deal to keep a contingent of troops in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama's announcement on Friday that all troops would be withdrawn in December." And he notes, "Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta also mentioned continuing talks to decide on a new role for US troops inside the country, again, despite Obama's announcement." Both the White House and Nouri are using a sleight of hand wherein US soldiers who will be "trainers" are not soldiers. It's a little game both parties have been playing for months now. I predicted last night that those US journalist who were punked or punked others wouldn't get honest today. No surprise, they didn't. If you want honesty in independent media on the status of the Iraq War, you can count on Antiwar.com and that's it. Democracy Now? Nope. The Progressive? Forget it. The Nation? Uh-uh.
It's a fraud perpetrated against the American people. Al Rafidayn reports that the National Alliance shares Moqtada's concerns regarding 'withdrawal.' They also are aware that "withdrawing troops" does not mean the end to negotiations for so-called "trainers" (in the article, trainers is in parenthesis). An unnamed senior National Alliance official states that the speech Barack Obama gave was to manage US public opinion and that he was delivering what he had promised his followers (what I'm translating as "followers" in the article might actually be better translated as "fans" but we'll go with "followers"). National Alliance officials are clear that they have no idea what the outcome of the negotiations will be but that the negotiations for trainers are still ongoing.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"National alliance calls Barack's speech smoke & mi..."
"Iraqi police"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Lovable?"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Nouri says negotiations continue, Moqtada wants an..."
"The Turkish assault on northern Iraq continues"



"Sinking fast"
"THIS JUST IN! LOWER THAN A SNAKE'S BELLY!"
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Sinking fast

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

FRESH OFF HIS LATEST LIES ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O GETS THE NEWS THAT HIS POLLING CONTINUES TO FLOP AND HE'S NOW LOWER RATED THAN HE WAS BEFORE LEADING WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS TO CHANT "HOW LOW CAN HE GO, HOW LOW CAN HE GO!"


GALLUP FINDS AMERICA'S PRINCESS HAS DROOPED TO 41% APPROVAL. IN THE 11 QUARTER, THE ONLY OTHER SITTING PRESIDENT WHO DIPPED THAT LOW WAS ONE-TERMER JIMMY CARTER.

NOW DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE DRAG HE'LL HAVE ON THEIR ELECTIONS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This afternoon Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweeted:
janearraf Obama: "After nearly nine years, America's war in #Iraq will be over" raising the question 'What about Iraq's war?' Goodbye and good luck.
about 3 hours ago
Today in DC, US President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce . . .
Well, let's look at how it's being reported. The best reporting? How about Mark Landler's "U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Year's End, Obama Says" (New York Times)? The journalists didn't write the headlines. We're not holding them responsiblve for them. We will, however, hold them reponsible for their content. Mark Landler didn't sleep through the press conference and it shows. Not among the worst but probably somewhere above the middle is Yochi J. Dreazen's piece for National Journal which opens: "President Obama's speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: the troops aren't being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They're leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay."
The biggest flaw for that? Remember the ones that will remain with the embassies in Iraq (under the State Dept) for a moment? Yochi didn't and didn't realize that in addition to those, there will be others. CNN notes that approximately 150 "will remain to assist in arms sales." Julian E. Barnes, Carol Lee and Siobhan Hughes (Wall St. Journal) remembered the ones assigned to the State Dept and also report on the ones who will remain for "arms sales." It's a toss up between the Los Angeles Times and AP on who has the worst report. Both are pretty ridiculous. But Reuters was probably the worst report until Ben Feller (Christian Science Monitor) elected to file. Normally, we don't link to Wired but a friend called in a favor so we'll note Spencer Ackerman (Wired) observes, "But the fact is America's military efforts in Iraq aren't coming to an end. They are instead entering a new phase. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas." Ackerman also notes there will be a CIA presence. It's a strong report. Eli Lake (Daily Beast) notes:
But the end of the war does not mean the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq. Indeed, speaking after the president's brief announcement, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough acknowledged that the United States would continue to train Iraq's military in the new weaponry that Obama has agreed to sell the government that emerged after U.S. troops toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Just this year, the Pentagon approved a sale of F-16s to Iraq's air force.
Also remaining in Iraq will be military contractors who currently protect American diplomatic missions in Iraq, such as the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Irbil.
I spoke to many people today. The news media sure is compliant -- not the ones praised above or below. I was told by friends at State that we were correct about negotiations and bluffing (see earlier this week). (That's their term, I call it the power of no and note you can't bluff the power of no. You have to be prepared to walk away if you don't get what you need.) From the Vice President's office, no, it's not time (in reply to whether I should announce here that the site would be going dark shortly -- and please note, this from a friend who is not only unhappy with the way Barack comes off here but also that I critique Joe when I feel it's needed). So I'm really not understanding why there's so much hoopla. Between what was said especially. As a friend at State pointed out, Barack specifically spoke of discussions being ongoing for "trainers" and the White House has never considered "trainers" to be soldiers. My friend at the Pentagon suggested I think of a scene we both quote to one another from Black Widow.(starring Debra Winger as Alex and Theresa Russell as Catherine) written by Ronald Bass, directed by Bob Rafelson)
Catherine: The truth is, I'm sorry it's over.
Alex: The truth is, it's not over yet.
So what does that all mean. For starters, is a withdrawal really a withdrawal if you move from Iraq to Kuwait? October 12th the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations held a hearing. As Ava noted in her coverage, State's Patrick F. Kennedy provided testimony about how State will have "employees" in Kuwait that will be flown in as needed via airplanes ("long wing") and helicopters. Who'll ask that question?
Probably few. But credit to Brian Montopoli (CBS News -- link has text and video) who gets it right from the opening sentence: "President Obama announced Friday that the United States will withdraw nearly all troops from Iraq by the end of the year, effectively bringing the long and polarizing war in Iraq to an end." And Brian Montopoli also grasps what many others didn't hear -- he quotes Barack stating at the press conference, "As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces, again just as we offer training and assistance to countries around the world." Mark Landler also notes that statement and points out, "Mr. Obama appeared to leave open the possibility of further negotiations on the question of military trainers".
New York Times' Tim Arango Tweeted, (if only he'd been drunk):
tarangoNYT props to @larajakesAP and @ruskygal. they nailed this iraq news last week
about 1 hour ago
"If only he'd been drunk"? It would excuse his not grasping what Mark Landler -- who works for the New York Times as well -- had reported. It's nice of Tim to credit Lara Jakes and Rebecca Santana of AP but it's not really over yet and he might need to read his own paper to discover that. In addition, the sources that spoke to AP for that article were incorrect. Listen to the press conference by Barack and then the one that followed. (We'll get to the one that followed in a moment.)
What Barack announced was not anything to cheer. There is the continued negotiations (I'm told Joe Biden will still be going to Iraq shortly to press on "trainers") for post-2011. David Swanson points out that what Barack announced today and what he promised on the campaign trail were two different things. There's also the issue of the remaining soldiers -- for 'arms sales' and for the US Embassy staff -- and there's the issue of contractors. Iraq Veterans Against the War posted a stupid, stupid statement which opened with: "IVAW is excited to hear President Obama's announcement this afternoon about a total troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. We are happy to know troops will be home with their families soon. However, there will be many issues to resolve in the aftermath of this disastrous war and occupation." When a lot of us were supporting to IVAW, the people in charge were aware of issues like 'security' contractors. But it doesn't seem to matter at all to IVAW today.
But that's IVAW. They've repeatedly embarrassed themselves over Barack Obama and it goes to the split that has led some to leave the organization. For whatever reasons, certain elements of IVAW got behind in 2007 and they've really whored for him and turned the organization into, as one former member likes to put it, "a bunch of __s" (p-word for vagina). And that's how they're seen now because in 2008 they went partisan and they never got their intelligence back. The same former member likes to point out that he can't take one of the faces of IVAW seriously because (quoted with permission) he's an "extreme 9-11 Truther, extreme, heavy, and he's also a member of that whole Cult of [St.] Barack you talk about. In other words, George W. Bush, all by himself, planned 9-11 and Barack is peaches and cream and puppy dog tails -- or maybe puppy god tales, I have no idea. But it's one foolish extreme or the other, where someone's the supreme goodness or else the supreme badness." And in each 'belief' there is naivete.
Then again, as another former IVAW points out, maybe it wasn't a good idea to make someone executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War when the person never served in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a puzzler.
Now they're gearing up to talk "reparations." The US doesn't owe the puppet government reparations. Those exiles lobbied the US government to invade Iraq. If anything, they should be paying the US. The Iraqi people, I believe, deserve reparations. But I don't believe you turn that over to the Iraqi government. Not when so many Iraqis continue to live in poverty while the Iraqi government officials not only steal freely (and proudly) but also waste money like crazy. Dar Addustour reports the Iraqi government is spending $150 million to buy three deluxe planes -- one of which will be for the Iraqi president, another for the prime minister. $150 million. While people struggle in poverty. And someone thinks it's a good idea to give the government of Iraq more money?
If IVAW had anything to offer, they would have issued a statement today noting that Barack stressed negotations were still ongoing. They would have called out the contracters as well as the US soldiers who are going to be remaining on the ground in Iraq not to mention those who will be stationed in Kuwait. But that would have required leadership and IVAW turned themselves into a get-out-the-vote organization. For those who've forgotten, IVAW got punked big time at the Democratic Party's convention in Colorado. We were there, Ava and myself, reporting on it for Third and IVAW had the Democratic officials running scared. They were making demands, they were going to have a protest. People in the press that we knew were asking Ava and I about it and the excitement was building and IVAW was geared to get more publicity than they'd ever had in their lives. Then they got stage managed right out of their press moment. They were all happy and thrilled and Barack was going to meet with them and blah, blah, blah. The clock had already been running out. They got punked. The party shut down their protest and shut them up and then ignored them.
The big split in IVAW, that it's never recovered from, was not, as some want to reduce it, about whether or not a political statement was being made with a US flag or whether the flag was being disrespected. That was the eruption point and it was issues like the refusal to be the independent organization that was going to hold all politicians accountable. IVAW was not a Democratic Party organization but that's what it became in 2008 and they have made clear today that they have chosen to remain that. That's a priority but being a veteran of the Iraq War or even the Afghanistan War, not so much. Despite being named Iraq Veterans Against the War.
If that hurts, I really don't give a damn today. We don't link to Wired and I dislike Spencer Ackerman. While a favor called in got Wired it's link, I didn't have to give kind words to Ackerman. I did it because he did a good job reporting on what's really going down. I don't care for David Swanson and usually see him as the most extreme Barack apologist but he didn't try to spin it or lie today and he got a link. He earned his link, good job, David Swanson.
By the same token, I didn't intend to write about IVAW today. Except for a few passing sentences about the shameful 2008 behavior, I've not criticized the organization. But this snapshot was ready an hour ago when Kat tugged on my shoulder and whispered (as I was finishing dictating in my cell phone), "You have to take this call." And I said "Hold the snapshot, I'm going to have to change something I know" and took the other cell phone and it was two former members of IVAW telling me about the IVAW statement -- which I hadn't even read yet -- and expressing their extreme anger.
I don't blame them. The fact that they're not IVAW now doesn't matter -- and doesn't matter to them. They worked to build up that organization and IVAW had core beliefs about the Iraq War. Those beliefs got shoved aside to promote Barack today. They're outraged and I think they're right to be. If it was just their opinion and I didn't agree with it, I'd present as "two former IVAW's feel . . ." and leave it alone. But they are right and IVAW really needs to take a look what they believe in what they started and the mutant child they've become.
Today was interesting. It wasn't what much of the press portrays but it was interesting. Like this statement, after Barack's press conference, by Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough, "You know, Matt, I think it's important to point out that we have a capacity to maintain trainers. In fact, the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq will have a capacity to train Iraqis on the new kinds of weapons and weapons systems that the Iraqis are going to buy, including, importantly, like the F-16s that they just purchased just about a month ago. So we will have a training capacity there. We'll have the kind of normal training relationship that we have with countries all over the world. You'll see, for example, Central Command looking for opportunities to have increased naval cooperation. You'll see opportunities in naval exercises; opportunities to have increased air force training and exercise opportunities. So we're going to have the kind of robust security cooperation with the Iraqis that we have with important allies all around the world. So the suggestion of your question that somehow there is not going to be training is just not accurate."
Did those doing their shine-on-the-glory write-ups bother to pay attention to that press conference? Apparently not. We'll probably go into that one on Monday (including the admission that ups the numbers -- probably by about 45, I'm guessing -- of US troops that will remain in Iraq).


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, October 21, 2011

More problems for Barry

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O JUST GOT A NEW NICKNAME: "PRESIDENT ZIGZAG." THE ULTIMATE FLIP-FLOPPER GOT EVEN WORSE NEWS.

53% OF AMERICANS AGREE BARRY O HAS TO TAKE SOME BLAME FOR THE AWFUL ECONOMY. AMERICA'S PRINCESS WAS LEFT SOBBING BY THE RESULTS WHILE JAY CARNEY DECIDED TO SEND NASTY E-MAILS TO EVERY AMERICAN TELLING THEM BARRY O DOES NOT HAVE LOW ENERGY BUT HE DOES HAVE A JAY CARNEY APPROVED BUTT!


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Panderer-in-Chief Barack needs to start firing some people immediately. How is Shinseki still over the VA after the scandal at the Miami VA Medical Center in 2009? Or the continued problems at the Miami VA Medical Center? As was noted at the start of a hearing last week, the Miami facility was in "the spotlight" two years ago when "endoscopes were not reprocessed correctly, placing over two thousand veterans at risk of exposure to disease." The instruments were used and reused and not steralized from one patient to another. In other words, a needle exchange for intravaneous drug users treated people better and more safely than the Miami VA Medical Center did. Back in July, Fred Tasker (Miami Herald) reported that 5 veterans using the Miami, the Murfreesboro or the Augusta facilities had "tested positive for HIV, 25 for hepatitis C and eight for hepatitis B."
That was the public safety scandal two years ago. You might think they'd get their house in order. But when you don't have a functioning head of the VA and you don't have a president who holds Cabinet heads accountable, you get one problem after another.
Last Wednesday, October 12th, the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on the facility and its myriad of problems. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. If it started on time, I missed the first 90 minutes (I was at the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations hearing). Any reference to opening remarks in the hearing will be the prepared remarks. I walked in as a tooth-pulling exchange between the Chair and the director of the facility was taking place. One that was apparently characteristic of the hearing as evidenced by US House Rep Bill Johnson's comment immediately following the exchange that "Are -- I'm just curious are you -- are you astutely hearing the responses to the questions that this Committee is asking and some of the answers we're getting?"
For those wondering here's part of the exchange immediately before Johnson spoke. Committee Chair Jeff Miller is speaking to Mary Berrocal who is the director of the Miami facility.
Chair Jeff Miller: So would you know if a veteran had come to your facility with a particular disease return home and then expire the next day? Would you have anyway of knowing that?
Mary Berrocal: Usually what happens is we -- Any deaths, we do review and there is -- Where indicated we do peer reviews, where the death is not expected, peer reviews are done and we --
Chair Jeff Miller: So there is a way that you would know if a veteran presented 24 hours prior to their death at your facility but was sent home? You would have a way of tracking that?
Mary Berrocal: Every -- every morning, we get a report on, uh, on anything that is unusual that might have happened, uhm, on the evening before or the day before. We get a report every single morning. I meet with my leadership. Uh, the staff in the ER presents their information following that, you know, we stay with the leadership and discuss anything we might need to follow up on.
Chair Jeff Miller: Is it unusual that a veteran would come to your facility, be dischaged -- not just discharged, but just be sent home, not admitted, and would pass away the next day? Would you consider that unusual? And if you do consider that unusual, is that something that you would report then to the VISN that this has occurred?
Mary Berrocal: Uh, we would normally report deaths, uh, unexpected deaths to the network, yes.
Chair Jeff Miller: So this particular, if an incident like this did occur, it would have been reported to the VISN?
Mary Berrocal: It would be my expectation that it would be reported. If it's an unexpected death, there are reports that, uh, that go forward.
Chair Jeff Miller: Regardless --
Mary Berrocal: Now we don't independently, like in an issue, report every single death if it's an expected death.
Chair Jeff Miller: Regardless of what the peer review may have found, you would still report it?
Mary Berrocal: Uh, the peer review's focus, uh, specifically on the provider to determine whether it was a, uh, uhm, something that didn't go the way it should go in that direction.
Chair Jeff Miller: If a --
Mary Berrocal: So yes.
Chair Jeff Miller: If a vet -- Okay, let's go inside the facility. Now we have somebody who has been admitted to the facility and is having surgery. If there is a death on the operating table, what would prevent that death from being reported to VISN?
Mary Berrocal: Uh, those, uh, would be reported to the network.
Chair Jeff Miller: All deaths on an operating table are reported --
Mary Berrocal: Are reported, should be reported. There's a system that we put through to report unexpected deaths.
Chair Jeff Miller: All deaths on the operating table are reported to the VISN?

Mary Berrocal: Yes, sir.
Chair Jeff Miller: All deaths?
Mary Berrocal: Unexpected deaths are reported.
Chair Jeff Miller: There's a difference now: Unexpected deaths or deaths? If a patient dies on the operating table, is that reported regardless? Is that reported to the VISN? And if not, why not?
Mary Berrocal: It would be my expectation that it would be reported.
Chair Jeff Miller: Is there a root cause analysis on every death on the operating table?
Mary Berrocal: There, uh, there would be, uh, a root cause analysis, again, if it's an unexpected death, there would be a root cause analysis --
Chair Jeff Miller: What would be an expected death on an operating table?
Mary Berrocal: [Sighs.]
Chair Jeff Miller: I would expect if I went in for surgery, you wouldn't expect me to die. You'd expect me to recover. Now what is an expected or an unexpected death? What is that?
Mary Berrocal: Again, it's, you know, I'm not a clinician.
Chair Jeff Miller: You're the director of the medical center.
Mary Berrocal: Correct.
Chair Jeff Miller: For now.
Mary Berrocal: Not a clinician. I, uh -- I, uh, I am not a clinician, uh, but, uhm, I, uhm, I would expect that -- I-I would -- Any unexpected death would be something where, you know, if they, uhm, found something that they were not expecting to find. Uh, I, uh-uh, you know, I believe that, uh, any death would --
Chair Jeff Miller: Who makes the determination as to whether it's expected or unexpected?
Mary Berrocal: [Long pause while she shakes her head repeatedly] There are systems in place to, uhm, to report, and we -- [a man hands her a note] and we've had, we've had a variety of -- of, uhm, of groups come and look and determine that we have done things appropriately. [Reading from card passed to her] All deaths are reported and they are investigated but not necesserarily through, uh, the RCA process. We do investigate, again, we do peer reviews to determine --
Chair Jeff Miller: Is a peer review punative?
Mary Berrocal: Uh, it could lead to be. But, uh, not necessarily a peer review. There's a group of peers that review to see whether or not the care that was provided was adequate care.
Chair Jeff Miller: So if everybody just decides that the care was adequate and that it was an expected death, you may not even report that to the VISN, right?
Mary Berrocal: Then there's a committee that, uh, reviews after, there's a, uh, peer review, it goes to a committee and then a deterimination is made. There is -- There are rankings or scores that are provided determining whether or not it's a --
Chair Jeff Miller: Who makes the final determination as to whether or not it is sent to VISN?
Mary Berrocal: They are sent to the VISN. The deaths are reported to the VISN.
Chair Jeff Miller: All deaths? All of them? Is there ever a death that's not reported to the VISN.
Mary Berrocal: Uhm, uh, we have, for example, deaths in the hospice, these would be expected, you know.
Chair Jeff Miller: I'm talking about on the operating table.
Mary Berrocal: I would expect --
Chair Jeff Miller: I'll let you think on that. Mr. Johnson?
There are a number of developments that are questionable and speak to a lack of oversight from the VA. But let's note the scandal from two years ago. When you give someone AIDS because you are not cleaning your equipment, the head of the facility needs to go down with everyone else. That's Mary Berrocal. Hepatitis is nothing nice to have either but what took place under Berrocal's watch, grasp this, is going to result in big money pay outs (there's already one lawsuit seeking approximately 30 million dollars). And most jurors would vote (I certainly would) to award the victim the maximum amount of money. Grasp that Mary Berrocal is paying a penny in any settlements or law suits or anything. The screw ups at her facility cost the US tax payer.
People have diseases they caught from Berrocal's facility because Berrocal didn't know how to supervise a facility. She shouldn't be running it. And grasp that she was removed from her position. Temporarily. Fred Tasker (Miami Herald) was reporting a year ago, "Mary Berrocal, director of the Miami Veterans Administration Healthcare System who was temporarily reassigned in July during a scandal in which thousands of South Florida veterans were given colonoscopies with improperly cleaned equipment, was back on the job Friday. It happened quietly. The announcement was made internally, without public notice. VA officials at the local, regional and national levels failed to return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment." They brought her back. And brought her back to leadership. After people were infected with diseases under her watch, she was put back in charge.
Where is the leadership at the VA? And maybe Barack needs to get off his candy ass and demand Shinseki's resignation. Maybe then, the VA will realize that these actions are not acceptable, do not show leadership and are not what the veteran expects from a medical center or what the US tax payer considers work worth paying for.
US House Rep Johnson noted a Fred Tasker Miami Herald article from last month: "Miami Veterans Administration hospital director Mary Berrocal and her former chief of staff, Dr. John Vara, should be disciplined for 'lack of oversight' that led to long delays in notifying 79 local veterans that they might have been infected with HIV or hepatitis through improperly performed colonoscopies at the hospital, a VA board has concluded." Johnson noted this information while questioning William Schoenhard (Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management, Veterans Health Administration, VA). Johnson pointed out that the information in the article was only obtained via a Freedom of Information request and . . .
US House Rep Bill Johnson: In documents submitted to us just last night, by the VA, only a draft unsigned and undated recommendation for action war provided and then 30 minutes before today's hearing a notice of admonishment was provided that was dated December of 2010 with no specific day. Can you clarify and explain this discrephancy and how that fits into your 'we're going to hold leadership accountable'? Yeah.
William Schoenhard: Yes, sir. The AIB recommended administrative action. The one that I conveyned, the national AIB, after the second disclosure of the veteran who had not been contacted and found that there was reason to take administrative action against the medical director and the chief of staff. The way that works in VA then is that I shared that report with Mr. Weaver and he took the administrative action. He may want to speak to the process we use in VA and in government to
US House Rep Bill Johnson: What administrative action was taken?
William Schoenhard: An admonishment was issued against both these individuals.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: A-a veteran escapes the facility and dies --
William Schoenhard: No, sir. This was taken predating this incident.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Okay. So this admonishment that came through the Miami Herald incident from a previous AIB, correct? Have I got this right?
William Schoenhard: That's correct, sir.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Then the patient that escaped the center and subsequently committed suicide happened after that, correct?
William Schoenhard: That's correct, sir.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Right. So, do you think the admonishment worked?
William Schoenhard: I think --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Next question. Can you provide to this Committee, Mr. Schoenhard or Mr. Weaver, a record of disciplinary actions from the Miami VAMC over the last 24 months? I would specifically like to see -- and with the Chairman's approval -- I would like to see the incident -- you don't have to give us names for privacy -- I would like to see the incident and the action and what level of leadership and management that action was taken against. Miss Berrocal, last week, one of your employees was arrested for selling names of veterans. In the past six years, it's estimated that more than 3,000 veterans' information has been sold. Have you alerted any veterans that their information may have been compromised and if so how have you done that?
Mary Berrocal: Actually, this was an investigation that was done by the IG and it was a covert operation. I learned about it at the time shortly before they were going to be arresting the individual and at the time what we knew was there was more than one, there was information on 18 individuals that was compromised and then, uh, uh, on --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Have those veterans been notified?
Mary Berrocal: The, uh, the, uh, --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Yes or no, have those veterans been notified? You talked earlier about a process for making sure that veterans are notified. I've heard that from various pieces of testimony this morning --
Mary Berrocal: We-we are in the process now of finding
US House Rep Bill Johnson: So they have not been notified? When was the guy arrested?
Mary Berrocal: Uh, this just happened in the last --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: And you didn't know anything about the investigation prior to his arrest?
Mary Berrrocal: I knew that they were doing an investigation and that they had some concerns The individual --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: So prudent leadership would be poised and ready to act if the investigation proved out, right? That you would immediately begin to notify those veterans whose information had been compromised. And you're saying that as of today, there have still been no veterans notified? You're only in the process of? 18 veterans. How long does that take? I can make 18 phone calls in 30 minutes.
Mary Berrocal: We have, uh, worked with our privacy officer to make sure that the, uh, information is done and, uhm, that we communicate to those veterans as we need to.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Okay and have they been communicated with?
Mary Berrocal: I believe so. I --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: You believe so?
Mary Berrocal: Yes, sir.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: But you're not certain?
Mary Berrocal: The 18 have been communicated. The individual in the case --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: A few minutes ago, you told me you were in the process of notifying them. Now you're saying that they have been notified?
Mary Berrocal: We have communicated with the -- with the privacy officer whose --
US House Rep Bill Johnson: No, no, no. I'm not asking if you communicated with the privacy officer. Have the veterans whose information has been compromised been notified that there information has been compromised and sold by an employee under your direction?
Mary Berrocal: I will have to get that information for you.
US House Rep Bill Johnson: Okay. So now you don't know. First it was you've got a process. Then 'they have been notified.' And now you don't know. Mr. Schoenhard, if I'm the wing commander, I'm paying real close attention to these answers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chair Jeff Miller: I can answer the question for you. According to AIG last night, they have not been contacted.



Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)