Answer: Because Gail Collins is butt ugly

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

IN HER LATEST ATTEMPT AT ACTING CUTE, THE SADDEST COLUMNIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES FINALLY NOTICES THAT THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF IS USING THE TERM "OBAMACARE."  FINALLY.  AND THAT'S ABOUT IT FROM THE SAD SACK FOR OBSERVATIONS AS SHE PRETENDS TO WRITE ABOUT A DEBATE BUT MAINLY TELLS YOU HOW BORED SHE IS AND OFFERS BAD 'JOKES' THAT DON'T QUALIFY AS POLITICAL COMMENTARY BECAUSE COMMENTARY IS ROOTED IN FACT.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE UNIBROWED WOMAN THAT FINALLY, IN LATE MIDDLE AGE, LEARNED TO PLUCK THE EYEBROWS?

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.

AS THE PHOTO WITH THE COLUMN DEMONSTRATES, GAIL COLLINS IS BUTT UGLY.

SHE LOOKS LIKE JUSTIN BIEBER'S UGLY BROTHER.

SHE, A WOMAN, LOOKS LIKE A REAL UGLY MAN.

GRASP THAT.  ONCE YOU GRASP THAT YOU SUDDENLY REALIZE WHY SHE WORKS SO HARD TO BE CUTE IN HER COLUMNS.

HAVING GONE THROUGH LIFE UGLY AS S**T, GAIL WANTS TO RE-INVENT HERSELF AS CUTE IN PRINT.

IT'S NOT TAKING.  MAINLY BECAUSE POLITICAL COLUMNS AREN'T BEAUTY CONTESTS.  ALL IT'S REVEALING IS HOW SHALLOW AND STUPID BOTH SHE AND THE PAPER ARE TO REPEATEDLY RUN HER ENDLESS BLATHER THAT NEITHER ILLUMINATES NOR INFORMS.




FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

We have to start with Mitt Romney.  Not because I want to but because we have to.  Why do we have to?  Because Joan Walsh has written another alarmist piece for Salon.  Joan's not a smart woman.  I don't know her personally and my contact with her in the past has been nothing more than dictating e-mails to be sent to her along the lines of, "Joan, please correct your error so I don't have to call you out online today."  You'd think I wouldn't have to do that.  Joan and I are both live in the Bay Area and you'd assume, for example, a supposed informed woman like Joan could write about our state elections and the Democratic candidates (Joan and I are both Democrats) without a mistake.  Joan struggles with facts.  Sadly, that includes on election day --  like in 2010 when she was yammering away about a male Democrat's great run for attorney general in our state race.  For those who don't know, Kamal Harris was elected California Attorney General in 2010.  Kamal was the Democratic candidate for that office and, yes, she is a woman.  Was one at birth, was one during the campaign and, despite Joan's bad writing, Kamal was even a woman on election day.  These are not minor mistakes and go far beyond carelessness.  As a general rule, I avoid Joan in part because I'd be calling her out every day if I didn't but also because -- unless it's about the state we both live in -- what she writes is is so inconsequential.  Like most, it's about what she saw on cable last night.  She's an aspiring TV blogger.  She can almost handle that.  Almost.

 

 

But today Joan wanted to tackle big topics. Or was forced to pretend to have that desire because Mitt Romney gave a speech on foreign policy.  So she took to Salon and to demonstrate that her liberal arts education was not wasted, immediately took to Tennessee William's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof to grab "mendacity."  She really doesn't seem to know what it is  but she was exposed to Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and damned if she's not going to shoe horn a multi-syllabic word in there somewhere.

 

Through insinuation, Joan Walsh attempts to paint Mitt Romney as craven (careful readers will grasp just how much autobiography went into Joan's writing today).  She has to use insinuation because there's nothing that alarming in his speech.  There's also nothing foreign policy in Joan's blog post (she repeats and she rails, she never has a framework other than "Mitt Bad, Vote Barack.")  That's the problem with the half-fact checkers ("half" because they never check their own beloved while passing themselves off as journalists), they can't handle ideas, their brains aren't equipped, one rogue metaphor and they're flailing around wildly in a cup of alphabet soup. 

 

Mitt Romney, if you hadn't grasped it already from Joan's rabid hate of him, is the GOP presidential candidate.  Today, he spoke at the Virginia Military Institute.  Click here for the speech he gave.

 

This isn't the "Libya snapshot."  But Joan has deliberately distorted what Romney stated about the September 11, 2012 attacks and Joan knows the easiest way to lie about what Romney said is not to quote him in full but to serve up half-sentences.  So she rants and raves and hopes you don't know that her overblown faux outrage never quite makes sense.    Let's quote a chunk of what he said:

 

 

Last month, our nation was attacked again.  A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead -- murdered in Benghazi, Libya.  Among the dead were three veterans.  All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both.  President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America.  And he is right.  We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.  They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia.  Our embassies have been attacked.  Our flag has been burned.  Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting "Death to America." These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do.  These are the right questions.  And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events -- and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world. 

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts.  They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East -- a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century.  And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration's attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West. 

We saw all of this in Benghazi last month -- but we also saw something else, something hopeful.  After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people.  They waved signs that read, "The Ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya is sorry." They chanted "No to militias."  They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound.  Then they burned it to the ground.  As one Libyan woman said, "We are not going to go from darkness to darkness."

This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation.  It is the struggle of millions and millions of people -- men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers -- all of whom have had enough of the darkness.  It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making.  It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria.  In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

 

 

That's Romeny putting facts into a framework.  Is it right or wrong?  It's really neither.  It's a framework and those of who took actually theory classes grasp that.  We grasp that there are world views.  There are ways people see the world around them.  The view above is not a lie or magical thinking or a tribute to mendacity.  It is the framework of Mitt's thinking.  (Most likely the speech was written by someone else.  Not even Barack writes his own speeches.  But speech writers do work to reflect the speaker's thoughts.)   The speech is not uncommon and altering just a few words and examples would demonstrate that it's one that's basically been givein by candidates of both parties for several decades now.  The speech is premised more on bi-polar [due to the either-or construction trap we fall into in the US]  than it is uni-polar, so some may see it as a throw back (bi-polar refers to the period when the US and the USSR were considered the two poles, the two giants, controlling world policy; when the USSR imploded, many noted it was now a uni-polar system and a few insisted/predicted that's how it would remain).  Others may not feel that way as they see emerging powers on the horizon and may grasp that, historically, a uni-polar system tends to move to a multi-polar or bi-polar one. 

 

 

If you leave out the section on Chris Stevens, in fact, you've got a view in Mitt's speech that Barack's repetedly referenced in speech after speech -- none of which found Joan objecting to 'mendacity' or 'magical thinking' when Barack, like every other US president, was stating 'people want to be free.'   However, this is what the faux fact checker Joan can point to with 'pride:'

 

 

Ironically, in a speech most passionate about making sure there's no "daylight" between the U.S. and Israel, Romney repeatedly hailed VMI graduate George Marshall, the former secretary of state who famously opposed Harry Truman's recognizing the state of Israel in 1948.

 

That's it.  He praised a man who opposed the US recognizing Israel.  Only in a simplistic mind, only in the mind of someone unable to process and analyze, does one policy position become entirely who they are.  Marshall (who I don't personally think was so great) is famous and infamous for many things.  But Joan thinks she's found a way to play Ha-Ha-Look-At-The-Idiot.  She'll probably repeat it smugly on Hardball when she appears there next.  She's a dog who found a dead mouse in the field and brought it up to the farmhouse porch.  Nothing more.   Thats what the faux fact-checkers do.  That's what their mini-minds can almost handle. 

 

[While Joan reduces George Marshall to "the former secretary of state," Romney's praising Marshall as "the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe's rescue from despair."]

 

And every time they puff out their pompous chests and spew their vile, we all get a little dumber as a nation.  Joan insists in her opening paragraph that Romney's speech was full of "promises or threats to maintain, restore, escalate or commence military involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran at a minimum."  That is why I had to read Mitt Romney's speech in full.  No offense to Romney, but I had better things to do today then read a stump speech.  But if Mitt's making a call for 'maintaining, restoring, escalating or commencing military involvement in Iraq, that's news and it's news that belongs in the snapshot. 

 

So lets read Mitt Romney calling for maintaining/restoring/escalating/commencing military involvement in Iraq:

 

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried -- and failed -- to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

 

 

What?  He didn't call for what Joan said?  You mean Joan Walsh lied? 

 

Yeah, she did.  And are we shocked?  Sadly becoming campaign whores every four years was bad enough.  Now the election cycle never ends and the Joan Walshes are campaign whores non-stop.  In the process, they degrade and destroy the country. 

 

Self-serving campaign whores like Joan Walsh pretend to give a damn about Iraq.  Yet they've never bothered to tell their readers (or repeat when guesting on MSNBC) what Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

 

Read Joan Walsh's garbage today.  Note her faux outrage. To her it is outrageous that Mitt Romney would attempt to send troops into Iraq.  I share that feeling.  But unlike Joan, I'm not just upset if Mitt Romney does it and I'll leave it to the cheap whores to pretend like Barack's not trying to do -- right now -- what Joan's falsely declaring Mitt Romney said he'd do today.

 

If it is outrageous to Joan that Mitt would do what she accuses him of doing (which he didn't do in the speech), then it should be outrageous to her that Barack is doing what she's accused Mitt of.  The fact that she doesn't acknowledge what Barack is doing goes to the fact that she's a cheap whore who degrades the public discourse by intentionally lying day after day.  Judging by her work, she awakes each morning not thinking of how she might inform or assist American citizens in grasping what is going on.  She doesn't want them to be informed.  Informed people make their own decisions.  Joan wants zombies -- fact challengened ones -- readers of Salon who will march  with her to the voting booth and vote Democrat.

 

That's not how you create an informed citizenry, it's not how you create a healthy democracy.  In her post today, Joan accused Mitt Romney of lying.  To do that, she had to lie and pretend Barack wasn't trying to do what she was accusing Mitt of and she also had to lie and distort what he said.  When you have to lie to take down your political rival, that says a great deal more about you than it does about your rival.

 

Let's go through what Mitt Romney said about Iraq.

 

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran.

 

 

 

The press reports that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is responsible for the rise in violence.  I tend to be more skeptical of that claim and see this as less about terrorism and more as a fight for who will control the country.  In my view, the refusal to share power and bring in Sunnis is creating the same oppression that the Shi'ites lived under for decades.  But Mitt Romney expressed statements perfectly in keeping with the American press reports (and Salon's not challenged those reports or even been skeptical of them).  From the right and the left, you read about Iran and Iraq's increased relationship.  From the right, it's Barack's fault for what he's done in the last four years (his fault that Iran and Iraq are so much closer), from the left it's Bush's fault for starting the illegal war.  Regardless of who gets blamed, the reality is that Iraq and Iran are much closer than they were before 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

And yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.

 

 

 

Where's the controversy there?  Abrupt?  It was an abrupt drawdown.  It wasn't a withdrawal -- all forces have not left Iraq.  But to argue with Mitt Romney that it wasn't a withdrawal, you'd have to have offered at some point that it was a drawdown.  Salon's never done that.  Few have.  Most go along with the lie that all US forces were brought home from Iraq by Barack in December 2011.  Most fail to note the 15,000 that were moved to Kuwait (which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended this summer drop to 13,000 and be left there for several years), most fail to note the Special-Ops that remained in Iraq, the trainers, the military to protect the Embassy, etc.  But it was "abrupt," the drawdown. 

 

"America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined"?

 

Yet again, let's note John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):



Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

Back to Mitt Romney.

 

 

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops The President tried -- and failed -- to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

 

 

Wheres the problem with that?  That is what happened. 

 

Negotiations fell apart.  In November they were ongoing, in December, (most) US troops were leaving.  November 15, 2011, the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony from Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff) and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.  In that hearing, the ongoing negotiations were discussed by Panetta repeatedly.  If you missed that, we reported on the hearing in three consecutive snapshots:    "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot."  Ava reported on it with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava),"  Wally reported on it with "The costs (Wally)" and Kat reported on it with "Who wanted what?"  -- we also covered it repeatedly at Third.

 

It was actual news.  If you're not familiar with it that's because the so-called grown up press chose to ignore the heart of the hearing to instead (mis)report a line of questioning between Senator John McCain and Panetta.  They reduced a hearing on Iraq to McCain got nasty!  And wanted to pretend that this sort of National Enquirer tabloidization of the hearing counted as 'reporting.'  (Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times was the only one at a daily paper -- and even the wire services missed it -- to inform about the large issues the hearing was addressing.  Broadcast news stuck to catty or ignored the hearing entirely.)

 

America has lost influence in Iraq.  The White House keeps trying to get Nouri's Baghdad-based government to go along with war on Syria.  Nouri keeps refusing.  Today, Lina Saiigol and Michael Peet (Financial Times of London) report, "Iraq is quietly shipping vital supplies of fuel oil to Syira in a deal that has triggered concern in Washington and exposes Damascus's difficulties keeping its economy afloat in the face of a growing civil war and economic sanctions."   The government of Russia has opposed the US government's desire for war on Syria (via its seat on the UN Security-Council, among other things).  Guess where Nouri is today?

 

RECOMMENDED:

• Iraq snapshot
• A second outlet reports the US military is inspect...
• Chess? He can't even handle Candy Land
• Heijira

• 8 dead, 25 injured in today's violence
• I Hate The War

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Sending US troops back into Iraq?
• TV: Jim Lehrer, notch below child molester
• Media 2012 (Ava and C.I.)
• Roundtable
• An exchange both media and White House hope you fo...
• Media: NPR and the Dumb Ass (Ava and C.I.)
• Ava and C.I. evaluate the debate performance
• Crisis for homeless children (Kathy Durkin, WW)
• Murray and Levin ask DoD and VA to work together
• Highlights

• Cedric's Big Mix

  They sold their souls for him!

  2 days ago
• The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! THE PRESS CORPS BLEEDS!

  2 days ago 

They sold their souls for him!

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

IF YOU THINK THE WEEK'S BEEN BAD FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AFTER HE TANKED THE DEBATE, YOU OUGHT TO CHECK THE WELL BEING OF A PRESS CORPS MADE UP OF SO MANY WHO ARE EVEN MORE VESTED IN BARRRY O'S VICTORY.

ALLEGED 'REPORTER' JAMES RAINEY IS HISSING LIKE AN ANGRY PUSS OVER GOOD MORNING AMERICA USING ANN ROMNEY -- WIFE OF THE G.O.P. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE -- AS A GUEST HOST AS HE RAILS ABOUT THE SUPPOSED LINE BETWEEN ENTERTAINMENT AND NEWS.  SILLY FOOL, GOOD MORNING AMERICA WAS CREATED AS A DIVISION OF ABC ENTERTINAMENT AND THAT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR DECADES, YOU STUPID IDIOT.  GO BACK TO THE PRE-PRINCESS DIANA PRESS, YOU STUPID MORON, AND READ THE REVIEWS WHEN ALL THREE MORNING SHOWS INTERVIEWED PRINCE CHARLES, YOU WILL SEE IT REPEATEDLY NOTED.  WHAT A MORON HE IS NOT TO KNOW SOMETHING SO BASIC AND SO WELL COVERED.

BUT SOME OF THEM APPARENTLY KNOW TRUTH, THEY'RE JUST HOPING YOU DON'T KNOW TRUTH. 

TAKE PISSY LITTLE MELISSA BLOCK IS LIKE A WHORE WITH HERPES AND AIDS, TROLLING AROUND AND HOPING NO ONE KNOWS HOW SICK SHE IS COZ MAMA'S GOTTA' MAKE SOME DOUGH!

IF YOU SURVEY THE PRESS CORPS, YOU QUICKLY DISCOVER THEY WERE HIT MUCH HARDER BY THE FAILURE ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT THAN BARRY O.  AND THEY'RE NOT JUST LICKING THEIR WOUNDS, THEY'RE OUT FOR BLOOD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

Starting in the US with veterans news. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

 

 

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, joined with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, in sending a letter to the VA and DoD Deputy Secretaries requesting that the Departments work more closely together, as true partners and with greater involvement from senior leaders, to improve the IDES process. The letter also calls on the Departments to set a definitive timeline for completing the review in order to implement meaningful changes. The requests stem from issues identified during GAO's recently completed investigation into IDES.

"I am not convinced the Departments have implemented a disability evaluation process that is truly transparent, consistent, or expeditious. Getting this right is a big challenge – but it's one that we must overcome," said Senator Murray. "I've seen the impacts of a broken system – whether it's from a wrong diagnosis, an improper decision, or never-ending wait times. When the system doesn't work accurately and quickly, or when servicemembers can't get a proper mental health evaluation or diagnosis, it means they are not getting the care they need and they are not moving on to civilian life. While DoD and VA are at a critical juncture, I am confident that by working as true partners and committing to real, meaningful changes, the Departments can improve the system for the thousands of men and women who will be transitioning in the next couple of years."

"I am convinced that the DoD/VA Integrated Disability Evaluation System can be improved to better address the needs of our wounded, ill, and injured service members," said Senator Levin. "This system is too complex, takes far too long, and still has an adversarial aspect that our service members should not have to endure. It will take a concerted effort by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, working together, to bring about needed improvements."

The full text of the letters follows:

October 4, 2012

The Honorable Ashton B. Carter

Deputy Secretary of Defense

1010 Defense Pentagon, 3E944

Washington, DC 20301

The Honorable W. Scott Gould

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

 

Dear Secretary Carter and Secretary Gould:

 

Essential to the effort of improving the transition process for separating servicemembers is overcoming the challenges confronting the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). Earlier this year, as part of our Committees' ongoing oversight of IDES, the Veterans' Affairs Committee held a hearing examining the multiple challenges servicemembers still face while navigating this joint program. As was made very clear at that hearing, real improvements could only happen with the "total engagement, cooperation and support of all senior leaders at both Departments …"

Indeed, the ongoing dialogue and Secretary Carter's July 2, 2012, letter to Chairman Murray underscored this very point, affirming the Department of Defense's commitment "to work closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs to examine ways to improve timeliness and effectiveness of the system …" Yet despite the importance of this work, and the Departments' repeated assurances of promising results and progress made, reality has yet to match rhetoric.

It is because of this clear and urgent need for total engagement, cooperation, and true partnership between the Departments that we write to you regarding the recently released GAO report, Military Disability System, Improved Monitoring Needed to Better Track and Manage Performance. Discussing how to overcome the challenges facing the system, GAO recommended that VA and DoD "work together to develop timeframes for completing the IDES business process review and implementing any resulting recommendations."

A timely business process review has the potential to help the Departments analyze each phase of the disability evaluation review process and identify areas where greater coordination and integration between the Departments is appropriate. Such a review can only be successful if the Departments undertake it in a truly collaborative way, evaluating their respective business processes in the context of what is necessary for an integrated system. Further, any such effort must have clear goals and timelines. So while both Departments concurred with the GAO recommendation, the response from the Department of Veterans Affairs was particularly troubling:

Although the Department of Defense (DoD) has been leading the business process review efforts described in this report, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has provided input and support to promote these efforts and will continue to do so to the extent possible. At this time, the full scope or current status of these efforts has not been disclosed to VA. As such, VA recommends that developing timeframes for completion of these efforts should be deferred to DoD.

This response makes clear that true collaboration between the Departments on the business process review has yet to occur. Surely, then, the answer cannot be to drive the Departments further apart by deferring all planning to the Department of Defense. Therefore, we are writing to request from you not only a timeline for completion of the review and implementation of any recommendations, but also that you make this review a truly joint, collaborative effort to improve a broken system. We also ask that you detail the steps you will take to personally ensure the Departments work together as partners in reforming this system and in addressing other joint challenges. As the Deputy Secretaries of your Departments, your leadership is critical in order to create meaningful change for our servicemembers and veterans.

We remain committed to working with you to address the challenges confronting this system, but further delay and a lack of meaningful cooperation is unacceptable and risks jeopardizing the Departments' ability to achieve a truly integrated disability evaluation system that works. Thank you for your attention to this letter and for all that you do on behalf of our servicemembers and veterans.

###

###

Kathryn Robertson
Specialty Media Coordinator

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

448 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington D.C. 20510

202-224-2834

Senator Patty Murray's office

Senator Murray's YouTube Channel

Senator Murray's Press Office Twitter Account

RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office

 

 

 

In Iraq the bombs and bullets never stop igniting and flying. For the month thus far through Thursday, Iraq Body Count counts 40 dead from violence. That's just over four days. And violence continued today. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports 2 Baghdad bombings which claimed 5 lives and left 25 people injured. This was apparently targeting the worshippers of al-Sadrein mosque. Prior to that bombing, violence was already taking place across Iraq. All Iraq News reports 1 person was shot dead in Nineveh Province, to the west of Mosul while a Mosul roadside bombing has left five police officers injured and 2 Zaafaraniya .bombings left four police officers and one bystander injured. In addition, Alsumaria notes an assassination attempt (via rockets) on the Governor of Salahuddin Province Ahmed Abdul Wahid in which two of his bodyguards were injured, and an armed clash in Tikrit left 1 woman dead and four more people injured,

Still on violence, AP notes that the Islamic State of Iraq has posted a message claiming credit for the attack on the Tikrit prison last week that left many dead and injured and resulted in a large number of prison escapees who still remain at large. From the September 27th snapshot:

The latest day's violence includes a prison attack BBC News reports assailants using bombs and guns attacked a Tikrit prison. AFP quotes a police Lieutenant Colonel stating, "A suicide bomber targeted the gate of the prison with a car bomb and gunment then assaulted the prison, after which they killed guards" and a police Colonel stating, "The prisoners killed one policeman and wounded (prison director) Brigadier General Laith al-Sagmani, the gunmen took control of the prison, and clashes are continuing." Kitabat states two car bombs were used to blow up the entrance to the prison and gain access and they also state 12 guards have been killed. Reports note the riot is continuing. Alsumaria reports four guards have died, 1 police officer and the injured include two soldiers and the prison director al-Sagmani. There's confusion as to whether a number of prisoners were able to escape in the early stages after the bombing and during gunfire. Reuters goes with "dozens" escaping which is probably smarter than the hard number some are repeating. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports 5 police officers killed and another two injured -- the numbers are going to vary until tomorrow, this is ongoing -- and state over 200 prisoners escaped with 33 of them already having been recaptured. If you skip the English language media, what's not confusing is why it happened and why it was able to happen. Alsumaria reports that there are approximately 900 inmates in the prison and that many have death sentences. Alsumaria does even more than that. It notes the recent prison violence throughout the country and ties it into the death sentences.

Today All Iraq News notes another escapee has been arrested and estimates 102 escaped. July 22nd, the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards." (They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) AP notes they also claimed responsiblity for Sunday's violence:

As the month of September winds down, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes Iraq witnesses its second deadliest day of the month (September 9th was the deadliest day). BBC (link is text and video) offers, "Civilians were among those killed and injured in the attacks around the capital, but the aim of the attackers seems to have been to kill as many security personnel as possible, wherever they could reach them, says the BBC's Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad." Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) counts 34 dead and 85 injured while explaining, "In and near the Iraqi capital, eight car bomb explosions and gunfire attacks killed up to 25 people and wounded 59 others, according to the police reports." Kareem Raheem, Suadad al-Salhy and Sophie Hares (Reuters) adds, "Two more policemen were killed when a car bomb went off in the town of Balad Ruz, 90 km (55 miles) northeast of Baghdad, and bomb planted in a parked car in al Qaeda stronghold Mosul killed a civilian."
Most reports float al Qaeda in Iraq as the culprit. The Irish Examiner quotes MP Hakim al-Zamili who sits on the Security and Defense Committee stating, "Al-Qaida leaders have no intention of leaving this country or letting Iraqis live in peace. Thus, we should expect more attacks in the near future. The situation in Iraq is still unstable ... and repetition of such attacks shows that our security forces are still unqualified to deal with the terrorists." If the series of assaults were part of the Islamic State of Iraq's Breaking The Walls campaign, they will no doubt claim credit in the next few days. July 22nd, the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards." (They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) They are only one group in Iraq resorting to violence. On the continued violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq offers this framework, "The violence comes just days after dozens of prisoners broke out of a jail in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit. Among those who got out Thursday were several al Qaeda members on death row, according to authorities. The jailbreak occurred when armed men detonated two car bombs at the gates of Tasfirat jail. The explosions triggered clashes with security forces."

 

 

A large number of the escapees were death row inmates. Last month saw protests, sit-ins and eating strikes in Iraqi prisons as prisoners demanded the passage of an amnesty law. Such a law would mean many behind bars would be allowed to leave and return to their families. Nouri al-Maliki's been promising it since 2008 but it's still not been passed. His State of Law has remained the biggest opponent to the bill.

 

 

On executions, KUNA reports "France on Friday condemned Iraq for carrying out six executions on Thursday and reiterated concern over the growing use of capital punishment in that country." Foreign Ministry spokesperson Philippe Lalliot is quoted stating, "This brings to 102 the number of prisoners executed in Iraq since the beginning of the year." As we noted in yesterday's snapshot, "In 2011, there were 670 known executions. Of those, the Iraqi government was responsible for 68 of them. The country with the most known executions in 2011 was Iran which had 360."

 

About the death penalty, France's Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains:

 

 

Driven by then Justice Minister Robert Badinter's commitment and his speech to the National Assembly the law dated October 9th, 1981 abolished the death penalty in France. This law reinforced France's longstanding efforts to promote human dignity. French law prohibits the removal of any person to a country where they risk the death penalty.

France has signed all international commitments on abolishing the death penalty. Since 2007, abolishing the death penalty has been enshrined in the French Constitution.

 

 

Al Mada reports today on the Ministry of Human Rights declaring this week that the time isn't right to heed the pleas of various organizations and governments and place a moratorium on the death penalty. Of course it's not the right time yet, they've already announced they plan to execute 200 more people this year.

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Bombings across Iraq"
"Could someone wake A.N.S.W.E.R. up?"
"Little Cucumber Boats"
"Debate?"
"Why are we being punished?"
"Best analysis of the debate"
"30 Rock"
"Those White people who see racism everywhere"
"a new show?"
"the good (ava and c.I.) and the bad and ugly"
"A movie remake"
"Orlando Cruz"
"Adele sings James Bond"
"Los Angeles Times, check your facts"
"The deficit"
"Reports that strike me as strange"
"Mel Brooks"
"The Guilt Trip"
"Hard Work"
"My pick of best piece of online writing this week"
"Idiot of the week"
"The Libyan scandal"
"The evaluation no one was waiting for"
"THIS JUST IN! THE SAD AND THE RIDICULOUS!"

The evaluation no one was waiting for

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

FOR ALL THE CHI-CHIS AND FROU-FROUS WHO'VE BEEN EAGERLY AWAITING TO KNOW WHO WON THE RUNWAY WALK, THE ALWAYS USELESS G.Q. STEPS A TOE OUT OF THE CLOSET TO GUSH OVER CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

BOTTOM BOY BARACK "CLEARLY CAME OUT ON TOP," PANTED LITTLE MATTY SE-BRA AT THE MAGAZINE CURRENTLY TREATING TIM TEBOW'S HAIRY RIGHT ARMPIT AS IF IT'S CLEAVAGE WHILE MATTY SE-BRA DREAMS OF "RUNNING ALONG HIS [BARRY O'S] LAPELS." 



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night in Denver, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate Barack Obama debated the Republican Party's presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a corporate event that Jim Lehrer moderated.  Shut out of the debates were prominent third party candidates Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson.  Last night, during the debate, Democracy Now! expanded the debate (audio, video and text) by airing questions and the responses from Barack and Mitt and then allowing Jill Stein and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson to respond and debate.  Barack is, of course, President of the United States.  Mitt is a former governor.  Rocky is a former mayor.  Jill is a medical doctor -- in other words, if you were in an emergency, you'd be smart to choose Dr. Jill Stein -- that might need to be a campaign button because the country isn't doing well.  Amy Goodman noted that Gary Johnson was invited to her expanded debate but had turned down the offer.  Here is a section of the expanding the debate coverage on jobs:

 

AMY GOODMAN: As Democracy Now! expands the debate, we put that question, "how would you create more jobs," to the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein.

DR. JILL STEIN: Thank you, and thank you so much for expanding this debate tonight, as you so often do, Amy, here on Democracy Now! So, first just want to acknowledge the crisis is not getting better. We still very much still have a crisis in our economy. One out of two Americans are in poverty or living at a low income and heading towards poverty. About 25 million people are either jobless or working in jobs that do not pay living wages. There are millions of people who've lost their homes, approximately 8 million. There is no end in sight to the foreclosure crisis. And we have an entire generation of students who are effectively indentured servants, who are trapped in unforgiving loans and do not have the jobs to pay them back with unemployment and underemployment rate of about 50% among our young people.

So, we very much need new solutions. What we hear, really, from both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially a rehash of where we have been not only for the past four years, but certainly for the eight years before that. We're hearing more about deregulating business and Wall Street, as if we didn't have enough problem from that already. We're hearing more about more tax breaks for the wealthy, and we've seen tax breaks continue over the past many decades across all sectors of the tax code to where the wealthy are not paying their fair share now. We're hearing more about energy, dirty energy.

So, we are calling for a Green New Deal modeled after the New Deal that actually got us out of the Great Depression. They created approximately 4 million jobs in as little as two months. So, there is a lot that we can do if we put our mind to it. We're calling for jobs created at the level of our communities that are nationally funded and which put decisions in the hands of the community about which kinds of jobs they need both in the green economy and meeting their social needs, that would be focused and controlled locally, but funded at the national level.

AMY GOODMAN: Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson, how to create jobs?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, President Obama would like us to ignore what is happening is past four years. Granted, he came into a tough situation, but we have to consider that during the last 43 months we have had more than 8% unemployment. It is the only time in this nation's history that we have had a president that has presided even over three years of over 8% unemployment. The fact is, that those 43 months of over 8% unemployment during President Obama's term is four months more than all of the months of over 8% unemployment from 1948 until President Obama's inauguration. He talks about recovery, all the new jobs. The fact is, that in the downturn, 60% of the jobs lost were mid skill and mid paying jobs, and only 20% of the new jobs during the so-called recovery are of that category; the mid skill and mid paying jobs.

Most of the jobs are low-paying jobs, these new jobs he brags about are in retail sales and food preparation. So, there are things that have been proven in our history to work. We could have put in place, and it needs to be put in immediately, a WPA Works Progress Administration kind of program where we are investing in the future by building up our nation's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, putting people to work. In the WPA project they 8.5 million people to work. We could be putting 20 million to 25 million people to work and making that kind of investment in our nation's future.

We need to renegotiate the outrageous free trade agreements and make sure they are fair trade so that we're not discriminating against those employers who want to hire the United States workers and also we need to get a handle on health care costs, because there are a tremendous competitive disadvantages because of the cost of health care in this country.

 

 

The same questions received real answers when the invitation list became more inclusive.  Something to remember if you watch the rest of the debates on the corporate-sponsored, corporate-owned debates on the corporate networks and the semi-corporate PBS.

 

What most Americans saw last night was the debate between Barack and Mitt only.  As Ava and I noted this morning, Governor Romney mopped the floor with President Obama -- the latter coming off petulant and bitchy.  As if to prove our point, Barack began making comments about Big Bird today that were, yes, petulant and bitchy. The Los Angeles Times takes a reading of  reporters and journalists (and Tom Hayden) and we'll note this from it, "Doyle McManus: Bottom line: Romney won. The question now is whether Romney can turn one good night into four good weeks."  CNN and ORC International's poll found 67% of those watching the debate said Mitt won.  Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) offers this analysis, "Blue Tie went first and went on a long rant on how his presidency has basically been a failure at this, but of course, blaiming (with some verity) the Red Tie that went before him.  However, give Blue Tie another four years with failed policies and things will get better this time, he swears on a stack of holy Federal Reserve Notes.  ("I really mean it this time, Baby").  Then Red Tie talked a lot about "middle income" people. Both Ties talked a lot about the "Middle Class."  Well, the term "Middle Class" is a ruling class diversion from the fact that the USA has the widest (and growing wider) income disparity in the so-called industrial world.  That's an inconvenient fact that the Scoundrels

don't want us to know, now isn't it?"

 

Let's note some other reactions to Barack's performance last night.  Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer) shares:

 

First, Obama's personality. In an earlier life, I spent a lot of time studying the psychoanalytic literature on narcissism. It was all part of a study of canonical American poetry, where I thought that the imperial grandiosity of the American imaginary could be illuminated by examining its underlying narcissism. But all that is by way of saying I'm not using this term recklessly. I think there's a lot of the narcissist about Obama. There's something chilly and empty about him. Unlike Bill Clinton, he doesn't revel in human company. It makes him uncomfortable. He wants the rich and powerful to love him, but doesn't care about the masses (unless they're a remote but adoring crowd). Many people seem to bore him. It shows.

 

 

That's a text link, but if you'd like to hear Doug in audio form, he continues to host Behind The News which now broadcasts Thursday at 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time on KPFA (click here for KPFA archive  and here for the LBO archive -- which doesn't have the full show yet but will in a few days). Susan (On the Edge) also notes Henwood and she shares this opinion of Barack's performance, "In my view, his performance last night is a reflection of how he deals with Republicans in Washington. He doesn't really fight when attacked; he folds like a lawn chair. The reason he does that isn't so much to appease them than it is he truly is one of them."  Joshua Frank and Jeffrey St. Clair (CounterPunch) add, "It was clear Obama, ill-prepared and perhaps on a sedative himself, was not expecting much in the way of competition.  Typically reserved and aloof in front of the bright lights and big cameras, Obama was cool to the point of frigidity.  Lost without his teleprompter, Obama stumbled over his talking points on numerous occasions."  At The Confluence, Riverdaughter notes:

 

The left blogosphere is all atwitter today and heading for the fainting couch because Mitt kicked Obama's ass last night. Did this meme come from the campaign-blogger meeting this morning?   I'm guessing the last thing Obama's campaign wants is for blue collar women to show up at the polls.  I mean, isn't what all of those "Romney is a bad dude who doesn't care about you" exercises have been about all summer and into the fall?  The Obama campaign seems fairly desperate to suppress the blue collar womens' vote because those women want nothing more than…

… for someone to kick the s[**]t out of Obama.

And last night gave them hope.

That's what it's all about, isn't it?  Those lady voters, and by this, oh best beloveds, he means the former Clintonistas who were royally screwed by Obama last time, they're too genteel for all the aggressive behavior that Mitt displayed last night?  Oh, my, I think they might have the vapors. They're delicate, fragile flowers and unfit for such improprieties.  It's not decent!  We shall whip them into a frenzy of condemnation.  We shall use their more civilized nature to reign Romney in.  He won't be allowed to do that next time, nosiree.

 

 

A discussion of the debate took place on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR -- link is audio and transcript) with Diane and her guests USA Today's Susan Page,  Washington Post's E.J. Dionne and National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru.  Andrea Mitchell Reports (MSNBC -- link is video) has a discussion of the debate with Tad Devine and John Feehery.  It would be really great if MSNBC could treat Andrea's show like a real one -- it is their strongest program -- she also had a segment with Ruth Marcus among others but lots of luck finding the video of that.  For debate coverage in the community, refer to posts by Mike, Elaine, Marcia, Ruth, Betty, Stan and Cedric and Wally.

 

Last night's debate was about domestic issues. 

 

Domestic issues include jobs.  Domestic issues include national laws. 

 

Was Jim Lehrer aware that the White House is in violation of the law -- violation of the law and practice that's been in place since 1941?  Was Lehrer aware that the White House has allowed the US military to fill their orders with Chinese goods?

 

Yesterday the US House Veterans Affairs Committee and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a joint-hearing.  Appearing before the Committees was the American Legion -- chiefly National Commander James Koutz.  In addition to yesterday's snapshot, Ava covered it at Trina's site with "The VA never solves a problem,"  Wally covered it with "Today's veterans' hearing" at Rebecca's site and Kat explored it with "House-Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing."  Wally's report included:

 

An issue that some may see as minor was brought up by US House Rep Michael Michaud.  I don't see it as minor.

He reminded everyone of how there was uproar in the summer over the fact that the American athletes at the Olympics were wearing outfits that Americans didn't make.

Did you know our army wears uniforms that are not 100% American made?

 

And that brings us back to yesterday's hearing and we'll pick up with Michaud.

 

 

US House Rep Mike Michaud:  When you talk about uniforms made in the USA, I read an article -- I left you a copy, I know you haven't had a chance to read it yet -- but I'm not the only person who's upset with what's happening with our military today. I was reading an article in the Air Force Times [by Jeff Schogol] where it says "Master sgt. says no to Chinese-made boots." He was issued a pair of Chinese-made boots. He made a stink about it. He ultimately did get American made boots. He was sent to Afghanistan. And over in Afghanistan, he was given a uniform -- the Army Operation Enduring Freedom camouflage uniform -- he asked for a pair of required boots, the tan boots. Well guess what? He was issued a pair of Chinese-made boots once again. In the article, you will see where the Master Sgt at the end, and I would like to quote it, what the Master Sgt said. And I quote, "This is about patriotism. This is about the Berry Amendment set forth over 60 years ago. This is about American soldiers wearing our country's uniform made by Americans." And I couldn't agree more with the Master Sgt. At a time when our nation is divided and the discourse in Washington, DC is extremely negative, it seems to me that with the outrage of our athletes wearing Chinese-made uniforms [at the summer Olympics] that this is one issue that we can all agree on. Even both candidates who are running for president of the United States are criticizing one another about not being tough on China and both campaigns are talking about making sure more things are stamped with "Made in the USA." Well there's a way we can get tough on China, increase things Made in the USA and to make sure that our American soldiers are not treated as second class citizens, that they have the best. That's what they're fighting for, this country, United States of America. And I find it extremely concerning because this issue is not an issue that needs Congress to act. It's not an issue that we need a regulatory agency to address. It's an issue that's already the law. So my question to you is: What is the American Legion's position? Do you believe that our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line each and every day for us, should they be wearing clothing made in the United States of America?

 

 

 

James Koutz: The answer is yes. The American Legion believes that [stops for applause to die down]. I'm sure the American Legion and the American people believe that all equipment should be made in the United States of America. And there you go again, talking about jobs. Put the Americans to work making boots. That'll provide jobs here at home.

 

 

US House Rep Mike Michaud: Well I want to thank you very much, National Commander, and just for the record, I know Congressman Duncan Hunter who is a Republican colleague from California, he and I are writing a letter, we encourage our colleagues to sign that letter, to the administration, requiring them to comply with the intent of the law and it's unfortunate that we have to do that. And hopefully, we'll see some changes in that regard.

 

When the discussion is jobs and when you're speaking to the Commander-in-Chief of the military and when the military is in violation of the Berry Amendment and Congress is calling that out, you probably need to bring that up in the debate.  Anna Mulrine (Christian Science Monitor) reports on how veterans and veterans groups feel they were ignored in the debate last night.

 

 

 

Today, there have been attempts to spin the debate.  Matthew Boyle of the right-wing Daily Caller reports:

 

 

After President Barack Obama stumbled his way to a loss in the first presidential debate on Wednesday night, Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse took to MSNBC to try to spin criticism back in the direction of Mitt Romney with what appeared to be a fabricated claim.

"He wants to go back to war in Iraq," Woodhouse said of Romney during a Thursday morning appearance on MSNBC.

In response, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul told The Daily Caller that Woodhouse's statement wasn't true.

 

 

The Daily Caller remains a right-wing organ and not a news outlet.  It does that, in part, because it's to busy churning out quick 'posts' to do journalism.

 

If I were a reporter covering a false charge that a candidate supposedly wanted the US military to go back into Iraq, I think it would be incumbent upon me to mention that the one making the charge (that would be Barack's campaign) is actually representing the candidate who is trying to get more US military back into Iraq.

 

Dar Addustour reports on the US military that remains in Iraq -- with a headline of how the Pentagon refuses to withdraw them -- noting that they did not leave during the supposed full withdrawal of US forces in December 2011 and that they have instead been working with implementing security and assistng counter-terrorism forces.  The article notes that despite a lack of Congressional funding for October, the Pentagon has juggled monies to find enough funds to cover the costs through January 1st.  Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports that the US Embassy inside the Green Zone is cloaked in mystery and that no one can tell you the number of employees -- civilian or military.  Grace points out that despite the lowering of the US flag over Baghdad in 2011 and the announcement that, after 9 years, military operations were ending, the US government, in fact, kept US troops in Iraq after the supposed withdrawl of December 2011.   An Iraqi MP on the Security and Defense Committee tells Grace that they are sure there is a much larger number os US troops in the Embassy and that the Iraqi government does not know how many US forces remain in Iraq.  An MP with Sadr's bloc says that the US military is there for logistic support but also states that the Iraqi government has no idea of the actual number of US troops on the ground in Iraq.  The article ends reminding that all US forces were supposed to leave Iraq at the end of 2011 . . . but didn't.  Last week,  Tim Arango (New York Times) reported, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

 

 

I have no idea why The Daily Caller missed that obvious point.  As we wrap up the debate section and move into the Iraq section, a big thank you to Ann who helped track down debate commentaries worth including in this snapshot. 

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"America recoiled from Barack last night (Ava and C..."
"How many US troops remain in Iraq?"
"The VA never solves a problem"
"Barack's a joke"
"Mary Chapin Carpenter"
"Today's veterans' hearing"
"Who won?"
"House-Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing"
"Biggest loser is EJ"
"B is also for boring"
"The cowards"
"Let's all vote third party"
"Eye Candy falters"
"THIS JUST IN! YOU SPELL IT L-O-S-E-R!"

Eye Candy falters

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

LAST NIGHT, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF THE VERY SHY BARRY O WAS FORCED TO GO OUT ON THE SCARY STAGE AND CONFRONT THE MASSIVELY POPULAR MITT ROMNEY WHO IS KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE BEST SPEAKERS OF THIS DECADE AND . . .

WRONG!

LAST NIGHT, PAMPERED AND PRAISED BARRY O WENT UP AGAINST THE CANDIDATE THE BULK OF THE PRESS CORPS HAS INSISTED WAS A JOKE AND WHO HAD ALREADY LOST THE RACE.

AND A FUNNY THING HAPPENED.

WHEN THE PUBLIC WAS ABLE TO WATCH THE TWO WITHOUT THE SNARK OF GAIL COLLINS AND OTHERS, WHAT THEY WERE LEFT WITH WAS A ROMNEY WHO COULD COMMUNICATE AND A SNIPPY LITTLE BARRY O WHO FELT HE SHOULD BE HAILED AS THE WINNER JUST BECAUSE HE BOTHERED TO SHOW UP.

ROMNEY DIDN'T JUST WIPE THE FLOOR WITH BARRY O, HE WIPED THE FLOOR WITH THE CHATTERING CLASS WHICH TRIES TO PASS ITSELF OFF AS REPORTERS.

SPEAKING TO THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O INSISTED THE DEBATE WAS RIGGED AND, LIKE IN 2008 WHEN HE LOST TO HILLARY CLINTON, HE WAS JUST GOING TO REFUSE TO DO ANY MORE DEBATES.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

USA Today's Susan Page (link is text and video) has a column today on the presidential debates which kick off tonight for some candidates.  (Some?  As Isaiah notes his comic this morning, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson  will not be on stage, the duopoly does not want them invited.)   In her piece, Pages notes a number of topics she feels should be covered including, "President Obama can rightly claim to be an early opponent to the war in Iraq. But once troops were there, he was an opponent of the surge that ultimately proved successful. What has he learned from those two decisions that will make him a more effective commander in chief in the future?"  Before anyone points out that tonight's debate is domestic topics, Susan Page knows that, her column is about the three debates President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will take part in.

 

There are many good questions Barack could be asked about Iraq including why he backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term as prime minister after Nouri's State of Law came in second?  The country's Constitution was very clear on the process and how do you help a fledging democracy take root when you overturn the results of an election?  As John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (The Daily Beast) notes:

As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

 

 

Another question Barack should be asked is why he keeps talking about bringing the troops home from Iraq when (a) 15,000 troops were moved to Kuwait, (b) a small number of US troops were left in Iraq, (c) Barack just sent a small number of Special-Ops back into Iraq and (d) he's negotiating to send more US troops back into Iraq?

 

 

Last week,  Tim Arango (New York Times) reported, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."  As  John Glaser (Antiwar.com) observes, "Most Americans have been led to believe that all US forces besides those guarding the massive American Embassy in Iraq have been withdrawn since the end of last year. But small units have remained in Baghdad to support elite Iraqi forces that report directly to the increasingly authoritarian Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki."  RTT News reports today, "U.S. military training for Iraqi security forces will continue uninterrupted despite failure of the Congress to approve money for it in a temporary spending bill now funding government operations, the Pentagon has said."  northsunm32 (All Voices) points out, "Pentagon officials had warned legislators that the failure to extend the authorization for the program could force the withdrawal of 220 of 296 personnel it currently had in Iraq working with the Iraqis. Obviously, this did not sway Congress. However, just as obviously, there is no plan to withdraw those personnel."

 

We'll come back to the topic of the US presidential elections at the end of the snapshot.  Right now, we'll stay with the US but move to veterans issues.  Last week, James Dao (New York Times) reported, "Numbers tell the story.  Last year, veterans filed more than 1.3 million claims, double the number in 2001. Despite having added nearly 4,000 new workers since 2008, the agnecy did not keep pace, completing less than 80 percent of its inventory.  This year, the agency has already completed more than 1 million claims for the third consecutive year.  Yet it is still taking about eight months to process the average claim, two months longer than a decade ago.  As of Monday, 890 pensions and compensation claims were pending."  That was last week.  Today?

 

 

James Koutz: We've seen many pilot programs and promises from VA. It's time to roll up our sleeves and really fix what's wrong with this system. As the Social Security Administration and other benefit programs can handle their claims in a timely manner, veterans cannot understand why the VA cannot. In the American Legion, we've made training our Service Officers a top priority. It's part of the job -- not something that gets in the way of the job. We bring our Service Officers together for training twice a year. They make recommendations based on a complex system they must navigate on a daily basis. They're the ones who can see the flaws in the VA's work-credit system that rewards quantity over quality. There simply has to be a better way to get this done. For instance, VA could start counting claims done right as a positive and claims done wrong as a negative so everyone could have a more accurate picture of what's reallly getting done in these regional offices. Veterans waiting past the realistic target date might be compensated with interest on their claims creating an incentive for VA also to get these claims decided on time. There are ways to work with the mechanics of this system and to make it serve the veteran and not the bureaucrats. We're willing to roll up our sleeves and work with you to find those ways.  The American Legion has people in the trenches who not only understand the problems but contribute to the solutions.  Veterans are tired of hearing how the government is working on ending a backlog that continues to grow.  Veterans and the American Legion want results and are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain them.  Remember, we're all partners in this.  Everyone knows the claims process is confusing for veterans and the American Legion is there with free services to help navigate the system and make things easier for both the veteran and the VA personnel who have decided their claims.  Nobody gets charged a penny for this service -- not the veteran, not the government.

 

[. . .]

 

Chair Jeff Miller:  I want to hone in, just for a bit, on the claims backlog because obviously that is a huge issue that's out there, that everybody in this room is concerned about. Congress is concerned about it. The Dept of Veterans Affairs is concerned about it. But it doesn't seem to be getting any better. [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki has already said several times, you quoted it in your opening statement, that by 2015, they would, within 125 days, the idea was that everybody would have their claims ajudicated at 100%. Well it isn't happening. And unfortunately, we had a hearing just a couple of weeks ago where we kind of took a status check with VA: Where are you? Their focus was more on what they were turning out which is exactly what you talked about. And that's important. A million claims being adjudicated. But the backlog is growing. And if you're not keeping up with that backlog, it's certainly not going to assist and fix the problem. So, again, I would like to hear from you if you would, your perspective on what are the things that can be done? What can Congress do legislatively, if you will, to assist the problem? We all talk about the electronic medical record. But that is years away from being able to truly have that seamless transition. We're moving in that direction. But we've got folks, you know, today that are waiting one, two years waiting to have their claims ajudicated and we've put dollars forward, we've put bodies forward. It does not seem to fix the issue. So I'd like to hear what you think.

 

James Koutz: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that we could do is do more hiring of ajudicators, do more hiring of the processers.  As you probably know, a lot of these claims that are coming back, they're not completed.  They need to be fully developed claims.  I believe like any other business, if you're in the backlog, then the only way to get the backlog taken care of is to hire more people.  And I understand the VA -- being a former, or still a commissioner of the Indiana Department of Veterans Affairs -- that it takes time to train an ajudicator or claims processer.  That'll take time.  But maybe we can -- and I don't know how much overtime they're working, if they're working overtime -- But I think they've got to do these claims more accurately because, when they come back, the first thing that we see is mistakes and that claim goes right back to the regional office and we're starting all over again from step one.  So I think that's the biggest thing, maybe get the accuracy where the Secretary said he would like to have it, 98% accuracy.  If we get to that number, then I think you'll see the backlogs claim be reduced.

 

Chair Jeff Miller: Do you know the percentage of the claims that your Service Officers put together or ajudicated complete?  I mean, they may not necessarily get the rating that they're asking for, but the percentage of packages that are completed?

 

 

James Koutz: I don't.  But Peter Gaytan, our executive director of our Washington office, probably can answer that for you.

 

 

Peter Gaytan:  Thank you, Commander.  Mr. Chairman, the American Legion takes very seriously, the quality of our work and our training of our Service Officres.  Twice a year, we put our Service Officers rigorous training to make sure that they have the qualifications, knowledge and skills to not only produce quality, fully developed claims that we submit to the VA but also to help reduce the backlog because it's got to be a team effort to do that.  We're going to have qualified, well trained officers to do this work.  Now your specific question on the number that the American Legion ajudicates or

 

Chair Jeff Miller: Or percentage.

 

Peter Gaytan:  I would like to defer to our National Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission VA Director Verna Jones who handles that area.

 

Verna Jones:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We actually received a report from the VA just last week.  And I can tell you the number of claims.  The American Legion handles  244,000 claims annually.  That's our number this year: 244,000.  Now I'm not sure of the exact percentage but the number is 244,000 claimsfor the American Legion nationally.

 

Chair Jeff Miller: Okay.  If you would, just for the record, if you could let us know, just trying to get a handle, you know, on how many claims are being done by the veteran themselves obviously using the veterans Service Officer.  The assumption, from my standpoint, would be that it would be better to go through a Service Officer in order to file your claim.  But I'm interested in knowing for no other reason then I think folks up here on the dais would like to hear it.

 

 

Today the US House Veterans Affairs Committee and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a joint-hearing which was a presentation by the American Legion.  The American Legion's National Commander James Koutz handled the presentation and he was accomanied by Verna Jones, Michael Helm, Peter Gaytan and Kenneth Governor.  The Chair of the House Committee is Jeff Miller who was present.  As he noted,  "the Congressional schedule changed a few weeks ago so a lot of members are not in Washington today."  Ranking Member Bob Filner is not seeking re-election to the Congress but is instead running for Mayor of San Diego. The scheduling change meant that he was not present.  US House Rep Mike Michaud was Acting Ranking Member.

 

 

Acting Ranking Member Mike Michaud:  I was troubled by the July report from CBS News that found suicide rates for our soldiers is up 80%.  Our veterans are returning from war with invisible wounds that need treatment but are discouraged from seeking treatment for various reasons.  As a nation, we can do better.  We must get this right.

 

 

He was referring to David Martin's report for CBS Evening News (link is text and video) report on the suicide rate in July: "July was the worst month ever for Army suicides.  Thirty-eight active duty and reserve soldiers took their own lives.  Among active duty troops, 2012 could turn out to be the worst year ever.  Behind the numbers are heartbroken widows who say their husbands sought help but couldn't get it."  And as disturbing is the number of veterans suicides. 

 

Over the weekend and through Monday, the Austin American-Stateman began publishing the results of their investigative series on veterans deaths.  This was a six-month investigation focusing on the the deaths of Texas veterans and, in their overview article, they noted:

■ More than one in three died from a drug overdose, a fatal combination of drugs, or suicide. Their median age at death was 28.

■ Nearly one in five died in a motor vehicle crash.

■ Among those with a primary diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder, the numbers are even more disturbing: 80 percent died of overdose, suicide or a single vehicle crash. Only two of the 46 Texas veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with a PTSD diagnosis died of natural causes, according to the analysis.

■ The 345 Texas veterans identified by the VA as having died since coming home is equal to nearly two-thirds of the state's casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that only includes veterans who have sought VA benefits, meaning the total number of deaths is likely much larger.


That is from the overview article.   The paper also offered "Suicide among veterans receiving less attention than active-duty deaths" which tells the story of Iraq War veteran Ray Rivas who took his own life on a day when his wife, Colleen Rivas, described him being in "good spirits" and notes:

An American-Statesman investigation into the deaths of 266  Texans who served during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars show that 45  committed suicide, making it the fourth-leading  cause of death behind illness, accidents and drug-related deaths. That percentage is more than four times higher than the general population: Suicide accounted for 3.6 percent  of all Texas deaths over the same period, compared with 16.9  percent of the veterans the newspaper studied.


Rivas o.d.ed "on sleeping pills in a parking lot."  Iraq War veteran Eric Sessions died on his motorcycle and is part of  the report entitled "After returning home, many veterans get into motor vehicle accidents" which finds, "Next to illness and disease,  motor vehicle accidents such as Sessions' were the leading cause of death among the 266  Texas veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan whose histories were tracked by the American-Statesman. The motorcycle and car wrecks were responsible for 50  deaths, or 18.8 percent  of the total ― more than suicides or prescription drug overdoses."  The paper also offers "Which veterans are at highest risk for suicide?"  The Military Suicide Research Consortium's Peter Gutierrez agrees that "relationship problems, legal problems, mental illness, depression" are the same in the civilian world and among service members and veterans but feels the civilian population is less likely to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury.   Afghanistan War veteran KC Dobson's took her own life last year, "Her Army photos show a beaming, freckle-faced young woman in fatigues, her dark hair pulled back in a bun. But her smile masked what family members said was emotional and physical pain that dogged her throughout her deployment to Iraq and after her 2010 discharge."

Other reports by the paper are "Researches look into possible causes of current 'epidemic' of suicide and PTSD" and "Scores of recent Texas war veterans have died of overdoses, suicides and vehicle crashes, investigation finds" -- all articles share the byline "by American-Statesman Investigative Team."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The So-Called Presidential Debate"
"Who's still in Iraq?"
"When the subtext becomes the text"
"Libya, broken laws and more"
"The tape"
"When did the lying about Libya start?"
"the truth comes out"
"The NewsHour underwhelms"
"Heart Fanatic for $7.99"
"Campaigns and debates"
"I'm not paying for Barack to break the law"
"The Libya attack needs real press coverage"
"The lessons of Libya"
"Too busy fundraising to address an attack"
"THIS JUST IN! THE UNANSWERED 3:00 AM CALL!"