Cedric's Big Mix

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

He has more product

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

THE FAILED OBAMACARE ROLL OUT HAS JEOPARDIZED A GREAT DEAL.

NOT JUST CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S STANDING AND STATURE, BUT ALSO HIS HOPES OF ANCILLARY INCOME.

TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE BARRY O MALE DOUCHE.

THE PRODUCT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE SHELVES ALREADY AND BARRY O'S BEEN USING IT FOR MONTHS.

BUT THE FAILURE OF OBAMACARE IS KEEPING THE PRODUCT OFF THE SHELVES EVEN THOUGH ALPHACAT'S LATEST VIDEO NAME CHECKS THE "OBREEZY" DOUCHE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS HE WAS, IN FACT, IN THE MIDST OF DOUCHING RIGHT NOW.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

We're going to start with the illegal spying. Remember Amy Heckerling's Fast Times At Ridgemont High?

Abby Martin should have more important things to do then try to act like a Spirit Bunny at Ridgemont High.

Vicious attacks are Glenn Greenwald's specialty, he's made a career out of them as a blogger and at Salon long before he ever moved onto the Guardian and restyled himself as a reporter. I haven't seen any recent vicious attacks on Greenwald. I've seen him launch them, however, such as the ones he launched on a whistle-blower.

As Stan pointed out last night, Sibel Edmonds is a whistle-blower, she's under a government gag order -- even now with President Precious in the White House. Idiots smearing Sibel to defend Greenwald better grasp that he's not a whistle-blower.

He's a journalist. A tawdry one -- as so many are. But he's a journalist that's becoming a joke.

Questions about his new venture -- even critical questions -- are not attacks. Abby Martin shames herself and she's not the only one.

Reporters don't need circle-jerks. In fact, circle-jerks destroy them. Glenn's entered his post-Johnny Guitar Joan Crawford period and now plays to the circle-jerk.

In doing so, he trivializes not just himself but also the subject. Abby Martin should find some concern over that -- if she can't find any over the way Glenn's set up the Ed-Snowden-good-but-Bradley-Manning-irresponsible nonsense.

Glenn Greenwald went on Anderson Cooper 360 last night for a segment on yesterday's verdict and also appearing on the segment was Jeffrey Toobin.

It resulted in the Circle Jerk taking to Twitter.

For those who missed it -- we covered it in yesterday's snapshot -- Federal District Court Judge Richard J. Leon found that the illegal spying in Barack's administration "most likely violates the Constitution" (Charlie Savage, New York Times). You really don't get that in the Circle Jerk Tweets.

What you get is Dan and Greg kissing Glenn's balls. Hopefully, they all enjoyed it. Because it didn't help anyone else.

I think Jeffrey Toobin's a moron and I've said much worse than that here. But the segment wasn't about Toobin and it sure shouldn't have been about Glenn Greenwald.

There is a huge section of the American people who have no opinion on the illegal spying. They will form one. Sadly, it will probably be to dismiss concerns.

That's because idiots like Dan and Greg can't cover issues because they're too busy nuzzling Glenn's crotch in public.

These wild pack attacks that Abby Martin and others engage in?

They're not going to win over people either.

They're going to make people suspicious.

And they should be. Huge money just entered the narrative and when is money not a detail in a narrative? Didn't everyone freak over the thought that the Koch brothers might purchase the Los Angeles Times? Glenn Greenwald's new enterprise is being bankrolled by a questionable source. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it go away.

As a journalist, Abby Martin shouldn't be condemning people for raising issues.

Instead of dealing with the issues, Greg, Abby and Dan are turning this into a personal club. That's exactly what will drive people away from opposing illegal spying.

You need to make it about the issues, not your love for Glenn.

Glenn needs to stop whining about everything. He's supposedly a reporter now. There's a different standard for them. The standard isn't Best Bitch on TV. When he goes on TV, he needs to calm down and address issues. Or he needs to stop pretending he's a reporter.

He's far too caught up in his own celebrity and far too busy playing out Joan Crawford-like drama which, of course, means nothing makes him happy. Back in June, I said he needed to learn to enjoy the moment.

He still hasn't learned to. Since then, he's put on at least 15 pounds, his bags under his eyes have bags, he looks 10 years older (never a good thing when you're significant other is many, many years younger), and everything has him in a snit fit.

People are allowed to question Glenn who, last time I checked, wasn't born in manger or to a virgin. When he makes it all about his own drama, he's begging for questions. When he's writing a book -- and has yet to release all the documents on illegal spying -- people are going to ask questions -- such as what did you save for the book? People have a right to ask questions about funding -- it's not for nothing that "follow the money" is a journalism adage.

While Abby, Dan and Greg may want to belong to a Glenn Greenwald fan club, most Americans don't. Most American don't want to belong any fan club. And when you're dealing with a complex issue like the illegal spying and you give people an 'out' by turning into a fan club for a reporter, many will gladly grab your out and bail on the issues. So if Abby, Dan and Greg actually give a damn about getting the world out on the illegal spying, then they need to focus on that.

You'd think the Center for Constitutional Rights would pay attention to the issue but they don't. They're such little whores for Barack, doing secret meetings with him, Vincent Warren playing footsie with Barack, so they have nothing to say. A federal judge declares the activities unconstitutional and CCR is issuing yet another press release on stop and frisk and saying nothing on illegal spying.

On the illegal spying, Ian Traynor and Paul Lewis (Guardian) report:

In an angry exchange with Barack Obama, Angela Merkel has compared the snooping practices of the US with those of the Stasi, the ubiquitous and all-powerful secret police of the communist dictatorship in East Germany, where she grew up.
The German chancellor also told the US president that America's National Security Agency cannot be trusted because of the volume of material it had allowed to leak to the whistleblower Edward Snowden, according to the New York Times.
Livid after learning from Der Spiegel magazine that the Americans were listening in to her personal mobile phone, Merkel confronted Obama with the accusation: "This is like the Stasi."

On the illegal spying of Americans, District Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in his ruling, "No court has ever recognized a special need sufficient to justify continuous, daily searches of virtually every American citizen without any particularized suspicion. The Government urges me to be the first non-FISC judge to sanction such a dragnet." Of the ruling, John Burton (World Socialist Web Site) reports:

The case, Klayman v. Obama, was brought by two conservative activists, Larry Klayman, who founded the libertarian Freedom Watch organization, and Charles Strange, whose son was a Navy Seal killed while on a mission in Afghanistan. Their suit is based on the same revelations by NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden as those underlying American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, which was argued in a New York federal court last month. (See “Obama administration defends NSA against civil liberties lawsuit”).
Leon was appointed by President George W. Bush to the United States District Court, generally viewed as the most influential trial court in the US since it hears many disputes regarding the legality of official US government actions. Coincidentally, Leon was nominated the day before the September 11, 2001 attacks that are still being used more than a decade later as the pretext for the dismantling of democratic rights in the name of the “war on terrorism.
In his 68-page ruling, Judge Leon, employing unusually blunt—and in places openly contemptuous—language, slammed the profoundly anti-democratic arguments of the Obama administration lawyers. His ruling--that the NSA telephone metadata program defies a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights—stands as an indictment of the anti-democratic and authoritarian consensus within the political establishment and the corporate-controlled media, and between both the Democratic and Republican parties, all of which have overwhelmingly supported the establishment of such police state spying programs and joined in witch-hunting Snowden.

Judge Leon’s decision follows on the heels of media reports that an advisory panel set up by Obama, ostensibly to “reform” the NSA, will recommend keeping its mass surveillance programs in place, with the addition of a few cosmetic “checks” designed to blunt popular opposition.

At Forbes yesterday, Jennifer Granick noted:

In the wake of today’s tremendously important ruling by the District Court for the District of Columbia that bulk collection of telephone metadata violates the Fourth Amendment, it is more important than ever that Congress end this misuse of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. However, Deputy Attorney General James Cole testified earlier this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the NSA might continue its bulk collection of nearly all domestic phone call records, even if the USA FREEDOM ACT passes into law. That must have come as a real surprise to committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and the dozens of USA FREEDOM Act’s bipartisan co-sponsors, all of whom agree that the core purpose of the bill is to end NSA dragnet collection of Americans’ communication data.

Leahy's office issued the following yesterday:

December 16, 2013

[Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) released the following comment Monday after a D.C. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction ruling regarding the National Security Agency’s phone surveillance program. Leahy introduced in November the USA FREEDOM Act, a bipartisan bill that would end the bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.]
“Americans deserve an open and transparent debate about the constitutionality, efficacy, and appropriateness of the government’s dragnet collection programs. I welcome today’s district court ruling regarding the collection of phone metadata, particularly because the litigants were afforded the opportunity to participate in an adversarial process. The Senate Judiciary Committee has held three full committee hearings and a subcommittee hearing on these issues in recent months, and it is clear to me that even more oversight is needed in the future. Our continued work on the USA FREEDOM Act that I introduced will also offer further opportunities for oversight, and for action.”

# # # # #

Press Contact
David Carle: 202-224-3693

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the illegal spying (we covered it here). In that hearing, Committee Chair Patrick Leahy observed, "The American people have been told that all of their phone records are relevant to counterterrorism investigations. Now they are told that all Internet metadata is also relevant; and apparently fair game for the NSA to collect. In any country, in any country, this legal interpretation is extraordinary, it goes beyond extraordinary in the United States." And on Monday, a federal court judge agreed. Sunday, the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle explained:

Significant reforms to this country's spy operations are now on President Obama's desk. They test his commitment to privacy rights. Regrettably, the initial response is not encouraging. The White House already has rejected a call to put the National Security Agency under civilian command.

The suggestions come from a panel Obama named last summer in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The leaked papers showed widespread collection of data from phone calls, eavesdropping on foreign leaders and monitoring of online links - all in the name of chasing down terrorist threats.
By asking for the study, Obama offered the hope that he was open to a genuine overhaul. But he's the same commander in chief who has endorsed wider use of drones, delayed closing the Guantanamo Bay jail where terrorism suspects are held indefinitely, and presided over a huge buildup in security work shown in the Snowden leaks.

While the editorial board can connect the illegal spying to the White House, others lack the ability to do so. For example, Scott Whitlock, of the right-wing NewsBusters, surveys the initial network TV coverage of the judge's ruling and finds that NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams and Pete Williams managed to 'address' the issue without ever mentioning the White House or Barack. That's beyond shameful. Whitlock doesn't point it out so I will, the judge's ruling? It was in the case of Klayman et al., v. Obama et al. How do you report on a ruling without including the name of the party being sued?

Senator Bernie Sanders' office issued the following today:

After a federal judge on Tuesday issued a scathing ruling against the National Security Agency, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Congress must stop the “out-of-control” agency from spying on innocent Americans and end the bulk collection of Americans' telephone, email and Internet records. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon said the way the NSA swept up millions of phone records “almost certainly” violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. Moreover, the judge added, the program probably isn't effective in fighting terrorism.

“The NSA today is out of control and we need strong legislation to rein them in. In a free society, the government does not collect data on tens of millions of people, 99.999 percent of them having nothing to do with terrorism,” Bernie said. “We must be vigilant in protecting the American people from terrorism, but we can do that without taking away the constitutional and privacy rights which make us a free nation.”

As a member of the House, Bernie in 2001 voted against the so-called USA Patriot Act. As a senator, he voted against renewing the law in 2006 and 2007. Earlier this year, he introduced the Restore Our Privacy Act, legislation to put strict limits on the intelligence agencies.

	Watch an interview on MSNBC

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

He gets another award

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O JUST GOT ANOTHER AWARD!

HE'S BEEN NAMED "THE WEAKEST U.S. PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME"!

REACHED FOR COMMENT, A GLEEFUL DAHLIBAMA GUSHED, "YOU ALWAYS HOPE YOUR WORK WILL BE NOTED BUT WITH SO MUCH GOING ON IN THE WORLD, YOU'RE NEVER SURE IT WILL BE. THEN A MOMENT LIKE THIS COMES ALONG."

BARRY O STOPPED SPEAKING TO WIPE AWAY A FEW TEARS OF JOY.

"I WON A TIN OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF POPCORN ONCE IN COLLEGE. IT DOESN'T PREPARE YOU FOR THIS MOMENT. "

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The western press whores themselves out repeatedly.

That's why Nouri is in power right now. He didn't get a second term from the voters, they didn't go for him which is why his State of Law came in second in the 2010 parliamentary elections. The White House gave him the second term in 2010. And Iraq has suffered ever since.

Here's the Brookings Institution's Kenneth M. Pollack:

The problems began after Iraq's 2010 national elections. The elections themselves were wonderful -- the best yet. Iraqis voted overwhelmingly for Ayad Allawi’s mostly-Sunni Iraqiya and Maliki's overwhelmingly Shi'a State of Law coalitions, the two groups seen as most secular, least sectarian and least tied to the militias. Of the two, Iraqiya garnered slightly more votes. But Maliki refused to believe that he had lost, insisting that the vote had been rigged (perhaps by the Americans, his aides claimed) and refusing to allow Allawi to take the first turn at forming a government. Then he pressured Iraq's high court to rule that he could get the first shot at forming a government, which deadlocked the entire political system. And the United States (and the UN) went along and said nothing. Rather than insist that Allawi be given the first chance, as is customary in most democracies and as was clearly what was best for Iraqi democracy. The U.S. did nothing. Ten months of political backstabbing followed, and in the end, the Iranians forced Moqtada al-Sadr to back Maliki, uniting the Shi'a behind him. At that point, the Kurds fell into place, believing that the prime minister had to be a Shi'a, and Iraqiya's chances were finished. It was also a defeat for Iraqi democracy. The message that it sent to Iraq's people and politicians alike was that the United States under the new Obama Administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road. Washington was not going to insist that the will of the people win out. America was willing to step aside and allow Iraq's traditional political culture of pay-offs, log-rolling, threats and violence to re-emerge to determine who would rule the country. It undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state.

Pollack leaves a lot out in the above but you'll note that he does begin to put some blame on the White House. They can't escape it forever. And the best thing about the blame? It may mean the White House can't steal the 2014 election (supposed to take place April 30th) for Nouri this go round -- or at least not without getting called out.

We're playing catch up with Pollack. Last week's "Leahy: In any country, this legal interpretation is extraordinary" covered the Senate Judicial Committee hearing, the "Iraq snapshot" on the 12th covered the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing and the "Iraq snapshot" for the 13th covered US Secretary of State John Kerry appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

We've got one more hearing to report on from last week. Thursday, December 12th, there was a joint hearing held by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. For the first Subcommittee, the Chair is Ted Poe and the Ranking Member is Howard Berman. US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is the Chair of the second Subcommittee and US House Rep Ted Deutch is the Ranking Member.

The topic was al Qaeda in Iraq. We may explore that identification in another snapshot. For now, we'll just note Pollack on the term:

Nevertheless, it is also important to recognize that AQI was actually only one of many Sunni insurgent/terrorist/militia groups operating in Iraq against the Shi'a, the Americans and to a lesser extent, the Kurds. At the height of Iraq’s civil war, dozens of groups like the 1920s Revolution Brigade, Ansar al-Sunnah, Jaysh al-Muhammad and Jaysh Rijal al-Tariqa Naqshbandia (JRTN). Many, but not all, of these groups embraced the same Salafist theology as AQI, but all of them espoused the same virulent Sunni chauvinism. To a considerable extent, we have come to use the term "AQI" as a shorthand term describing a wider range of violent Sunni extremist groups.

Appearing before the two Subcommittees were Pollack, Jessica D. Lewis (Institute for the Study of War), Michael Knights (Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Daniel Byman (professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University).

We're going to note the hearing in at least two snapshots. Since the topic was Iraq, we may end up doing more coverage of it than just two snapshots.

Congress was highly resistant to Nouri al-Maliki when he met with them in the last week of October. (Friday, November 1st, he went to the White House and met with US President Barack Obama.) They're resistant because they know Nouri's a thug.

They don't have to whore like Jane Arraf and other reporters do.

We're very critical of John Kerry's failures with regards to Iraq. So much so that some e-mails complain about how Hillary got a pass. I think you need to look at the reporting in January on Hillary's testimony to Congress before you argue Hillary got a pass.

In terms of Iraq, Hillary wasn't over it. We noted that in real time. US Vice President Joe Biden was supposed to be in charge but he really couldn't go around War Hawk Samantha Power either (Power argued the White House had to give Nouri a second term -- Barack went along with her).

One good reason for Hillary not being over Iraq and for her making only one visit to the country? Nouri al-Maliki hates her. He hates most women, true. But Hillary talked what a thug and criminal he was in an April 2008 Senate hearing. Nouri never forgot. Now Biden made similar comments but spread out over time. He's also a man so Nouri's more likely to go meek.

It is not just Democrats or just Republicans that know Nouri's a thug, an abuser of human rights, a criminal. This is known in both parties of Congress. And when I note that here, someone wants to whine that that's just not true. Like Senator Barbara Boxer's public remarks indicting Nouri have vanished?

From Thursday's hearing, we're first going to note two statements on Nouri.

Subcommittee Chair Ted Poe is a Republican. We don't usually note party i.d. -- there are already enough harsh divisions in this country. But to make sure everyone gets that both parties know Nouri is a thug and a menace, we're going to do two party i.d.s.

Subcommittee Chair Ted Poe: Now he wants some help once again. He talks out of both sides of his mouth while trying to cozy up to the United States, he cozies up to the Iranians at the same time. Prime Minister Maliki came here dragging the sack in November wanting more tax payer money. He wanted attack helicopters and all sorts of advanced equipment. But is that what he needs to go after al Qaeda? Does he have other reasons for wanting that equipment? Maliki has centralized power. alienated the Sunnis, brought back the Shi'ite hit squads. This in part has allowed al Qaeda to return to be back in Iraq. What Maliki needs is a new strategy to fight al Qaeda. This includes doing a better job of reaching out to the Sunni population so that they feel that Maliki represents all Iraqis, not just one group.

Alright. Ranking Member Brad Sherman is a Democrat. What does he think of Nouri?

Ranking Member Brad Sherman: And he wants American weapons. And his biggest argument is that we should give him American weapons because his enemies hate us. The problem is, his friends hate us too. And his friends in Tehran are more dangerous to us than his enemies in Falluja. Now Maliki's argument goes something like this: He holds office today solely as a result of various actions taken by the United States -- some of which were mistakes. And so therefore he is our product and therefore we have to protect him and do whatever he wants. And so therefore he is one of the good guys no matter who he allies himself with today. The fact is, his allegiance to Tehran is only a little bit less than Assad's allegiance to Tehran. But Maliki's government goes something like this: Since he has been the beneficiary of a series of American mistakes in the past, we have a legal duty to continue to make mistakes on his behalf in the future. Uhm, if we're going to provide him with weapons, there ought to be at least four conditions. The first is that he start trying to reach a compromise with at least some elements of the Sunni community. He's taken provocative actions against Sunnis such as postponing elections in Sunni areas and forcing prominent Sunni politicians out of the government. He shouldn't be seeking the best deal he can for the Shi'ite community, he should be seeking a peace that would benefit not only him but the United States. And he needs to allow proper Sunni representation in his government. Second, if he wants our weapons, he ought to pay for them. People involved in foreign policy seem to be so focused on foreign policy that whether we get paid for the weapons is a footnote. The fact is Iraq has plenty of oil now, will have even more in the future. They've to enough cash to pay for the weapons now and they can certainly borrow on the international markets and, at very minimum, they can agree to pay us later in cash or oil. Third, he's got to stop Iranian flights over his air space into Syria. He'll say, 'Well then give me an airforce.' We don't have to. All he has to do is authorize the Saudi, the Turkish or the American airforce to ensure that his air space is not used by Iranian thugs transiting to so that they can destroy and kill as many innocent people and some non-innocent people in Syria. And finally he's got to focus on the hostages of Camp Ashraf and the human rights of those in Camp Hurriyah also known as Camp Liberty. These are international responsibilities that he has. So if there is no penetrating analysis, the argument will be: 'We created him, he seems like a good guy, he's in trouble, therefore we give him weapons for free.' That is the default position of our foreign policy

Get it? Criticism of Nouri is bi-partisan. It is not about who controls the White House. Though Democrats were the most vocal of the two groups back when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House, many Republicans in Congress, especially in the Senate, were publicly critical of Nouri and his thug ways.

And now we're going to note Kenneth Pollack's testimony:

Unfortunately, over the past two years, Iraq has taken a noticeable turn for the worse, although how bad things will get still remains uncertain. Our topic today, the reemergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), is among the most visible and frightening manifestations of Iraq's downward turn. AQI has been one of the principal culprits in the worsening violence across Iraq. In 2012, Iraq experienced a 10 percent increase in violent civilian deaths. That was the first annual increase since 2006, prior to the so-called "surge." In 2013, Iraq may very well experience a 100 percent increase in violent civilian deaths over 2012. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that violence is multiplying in Iraq by orders of magnitude. However, we need to recognize that the increasing violence in Iraq, and the reemergence of groups like AQI do not constitute Iraq's problems per se. They are instead the symptoms of those problems. They are the outward manifestations of deep-seated structural conflicts and unresolved differences among Iraq’s various constituencies. Although it is not impossible to mitigate or even resolve those underlying problems, they will not be overcome easily, and few of Iraq's political leaders are making the kind of effort that would be needed to do so. Instead, most of Iraq's leaders concentrate on achieving short-term tactical gains against their rivals, often in ways that exacerbate those problems rather than ameliorating them. For this reason, it will be difficult even to meaningfully reduce the levels of violence in Iraq without addressing Iraq's fundamental political -- and, to a lesser extent, economic and social -- problems. Iraq will never be peaceful, prosperous and free of the scourge of AQI and groups like it until Iraq's leaders properly grapple with those underlying problems and forge reasonable compromises to allow the country to move forward. The converse is also true. The longer that Iraq's fundamental political problems are allowed to fester; the longer that Iraq's bad, old political culture is allowed to hold sway; and the longer that Iraq's leaders obsess over how to beat their adversaries rather than fixing what ails the nation, the worse the violence is likely to get and the stronger that groups like AQI are likely to grow. In the end, as they hope, these groups might succeed in pushing the country back into civil war. [. . .] Looking back, Iraq may have reached its political, military and economic apex in 2009 and early 2010. In 2009 Iraq held provincial elections, and in 2010 national elections, that had resulted in stunning victories for those parties considered the most secular, the most vested in improving governance and services, the least tied to the militias and the least sectarian. They also handed equally stunning defeats to the parties most closely tied to the militias and the civil war. Indeed, the militias -- Sunni and Shi'a -- were withering, as were the vast majority of terrorist groups. Violence and deaths were way down. Secular, peaceful, nationalistic Iraqi leaders -- including Sunnis like Osama al-Nujaifi and Rafe al-Issawi -- were emerging and becoming dominant figures in government. There was a widespread feeling that everyone had to play by the democratic rules and no one could get caught subverting the will of the Iraqi people or even being too corrupt. All of this progress was very real, but it was also very fragile. Like a bone that had been fractured but was now mending, it needed a cast to protect it, hold it, and allow the bones to knit together and become strong. That role was played by the United States, in particular by our military forces in Iraq. During that time frame, it became an increasingly symbolic role as the drawdown in troop strength meant that we did less and less of the actual provision of security for Iraqis, but it was an absolutely critical role. As long as American forces remained, Iraqis did not fear the re-emergence of the security vacuum or the widespread use of violence by any group -- including whichever group controlled the government, thereby giving it by far the greatest capacity to use violence against its rivals. It also meant that Iraq's political leaders had to abide by the democratic rules of the road laid down by the Americans. This enabled good Iraqis to act constructively, and prevented the bad ones from acting too destructively. Iraqis could assume that the future would be better, not worse, and make decisions based on their hopes, not their fears. The problems began after Iraq's 2010 national elections. The elections themselves were wonderful -- the best yet. Iraqis voted overwhelmingly for Ayad Allawi's mostly-Sunni Iraqiya and Maliki's overwhelmingly Shi'a State of Law coalitions, the two groups seen as most secular, least sectarian and least tied to the militias. Of the two, Iraqiya garnered slightly more votes. But Maliki refused to believe that he had lost, insisting that the vote had been rigged -- perhaps by the Americans, his aides claimed -- and refusing to allow Allawi to take the first turn at forming a government. Then he pressured Iraq's high court to rule that he could get the first shot at forming a government, which deadlocked the entire political system. And the United States -- and the UN -- went along and said nothing. Rather than insist that Allawi be given the first chance, as is customary in most democracies and as was clearly what was best for Iraqi democracy. The US did nothing. Ten months of political backstabbing followed, and in the end, the Iranians forced Muqtada as-Sadr to back Maliki, uniting the Shi'a behind him. At that point, the Kurds fell into place, believing that the prime minister had to be a Shi'a, and Iraqiya's chances were finished. It was also a defeat for Iraqi democracy. The message that it sent to Iraq's people and politicians alike was that the United States under the new Obama Administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road. Washington was not going to insist that the will of the people win out. America was willing to step aside and allow Iraq's traditional political culture of pay-offs, log-rolling, threats and violence to re-emerge to determine who would rule the country. It undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state. Having backed Maliki for prime minister simply to end the embarrassing political stalemate, the Administration compounded its mistake by lashing itself uncritically to his government. No matter what Maliki did -- good, bad or indifferent -- Washington backed him. Whether it was out of fear of being criticized for allowing him to remain in office in the first place, or sheer lack of interest and a desire to simply do what was easiest and required the least effort on the part of the US, the Administration applauded and overlooked everything he did. Maliki certainly did some good. He was not all bad. But he also did some very bad things -- things that were highly subversive of Iraqi democracy. Among the worst was to thoroughly politicize the ISF, ousting huge numbers of the competent, apolitical officers that the United States had worked so hard to put in place and replacing them with people loyal to him, regardless of their credentials. Very quickly, the ISF went from an apolitical force that most Iraqis trusted, to a servant of the Maliki government deeply distrusted by those outside the prime minister's camp.

Again, we'll cover the hearing in at least one more snapshot this week. But the violence isn't happening in a vacuum. The foreign media in Iraq has been far too permissive when it comes to Nouri al-Maliki, allowing him to define what is violence, allowing him to define what started the violence.

The fact of the matter is, in 2010, he refused to nominate people to head the security ministries so that he could control them. Why is it only CNN can note that this is harmful to the security situation?

They've fawned over Nouri, they've covered for him. They've done everything but hold him accountable.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Selfie""
"A wave of attacks leave at least 54 dead and at le..."
"Hejira"
"Oh, so sometimes security wearing security uniform..."
"I Hate The War"
"revenge's mini-finale (the bad)"
"I have seen hell (and it looks like Gwyneth Paltrow)"
"The deal with the devil"
"Look who ObamaCare's screwing over now"
"Brian's back"
"Joseph Cannonfire is an idiot"
"The Butler got shut out"
"12 years after, questions remain"
"Isaiah, spying, the Clarkson TV 'special'"
"Setback for illegal spying"

"Tony The Pimp Blair"
"THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO'S PIMPING!"

""

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Tony The Pimp Blair

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

SLIMY TONY BLAIR USED NELSON MANDELA'S MEMORIAL SERVICE TO PLAY PIMP.

THE JOHN WAS HIS CLIENT VICTOR PONTA, FOR THE HOOKER, HE ENLISTED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

NO WORD YET ON WHICH OF BARRY'S SPECIALTIES PONTA WANTED OR WHETHER HE PAID BY THE HOUR OR FOR THE NIGHT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Sheikh Ali al-Suleiman Amir of Duleim tribes said that Sahwa forces should take out of Anbar province., if the central government want security and stability in the province for the next phase.
He said in a speech in the courtyard of the sit-in north of Ramadi : "At the beginning of the formation of Sahwa forces was to fight terrorism, and has been integrated into the security services , but in these days , Sahwa works in favor of a particular parties. so if the central government want security to preavail in Anbar then must get them out of the province.

That's the smartest request he could make. Sahwa leaders in Anbar are becoming an embarrassment and a menace. They are threatening the protesters and this week began telling the press that the way to deal with the protests is to go into the sit-ins and bash heads.

The heads that need to be bashed? Sahwas. No one really gives a damn about 'em. They're part of the mafia in Iraq -- that's why so many leaders hail from the concrete business. They're whorish little toadies who took money from the occupying power (the US) to spy on and attack other Iraqis.

Now the whores have sold out to Nouri and have become his muscle to attack the protesters.

They thought -- as did Nouri -- that they could take the heat of SWAT and other of Nouri's forces -- forces that are primarily Shi'ite. But the Sahwa in Anbar? Those are Sunnis. Sunnis attacking Sunnis, they and Nouri thought, would be able to pull off violence.

It doesn't work that way.

And if Sahwa can't be put on a tighter leash, Iraq's really going to erupt.

The State Dept, the White House and US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft need to explain this to Nouri real quick.

Call them militants, call them rebels, call them insurgents, call them terrorists -- it doesn't matter one damn bit.

What happens if Sahwa doesn't sit its ass down? What happens if they go after the protesters?

The resistance/the terrorists/the militants/the insurgents suddenly and immediately get street cred in Anbar because they're the only ones who will be seen as standing up for the Sunni population.

If you think things are bad in Iraq right now, you're right. But if Sahwa launches a violent attack on the protesters, things will get much worse and militants will be able to move much more freely because they will have many people in Anbar aligned with and/or sympathetic to them and their cause.

Nouri can't protect the Iraqi people, he can attack them -- as he's attacked the Camp Ashraf residents all along. There are 7 Ashraf members who were kidnapped this fall. Where are they?

Last month, Brett McGurk, the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, appeared Wednesday before the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa (see the November 13th "Iraq snapshot," the November 14th "Iraq snapshot" and the November 15th "Iraq snapshot"). In that hearing, this exchange took place.

US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee: [. . .] But there are hostages in Iraq that we must have now. There's documentation that those hostages are there by our French allies, by the United Nations and other supportive groups and information. I can't imagine with the wealth of sophisticated intelligence authorities that we have, that we have funded who have a vast array of information about Americans cannot pinpoint where starving Iranians, loved ones [are] whose families are trying to save their lives after being on a hunger strike for 73 days. And so I would ask this question of you, already knowing about your heart and your concern, I will not judge you, I already know that you're committed to getting this right/ Will you -- will you demand of Maliki, not next week or months from now, but can we expect in the next 48 hours a call to the head of the government of Iraq demanding the release of these hostages and demanding their release now? Or the documented, undeniable evidence that they are not held in Iraq? Second, would you be engaged with -- or the Secretary [of State John Kerry] be engaged with -- and I have spoken to Secretary Kerry, I know his heart -- with Maliki to demand the security of those in Camp Ashraf for now and forever until a relocation to a homeland, a place where their relatives are or where they desire to be? [. . .]

Brett McGurk: [. . .] We can pinpoint where the people are and I'd like to follow up with you on that. The seven are not in Iraq. But I will guarantee in my conversations with Maliki on down, the safety and the security of Camp Ashraf, Camp Liberty, where the residents are, the government needs to do everything possible to keep those poeople safe but they will never be safe until they're out of Iraq. And we all need to work together -- the MEK, us, the Committee, everybody, the international community -- to find a place for them to go. There's now a UN trust fund, we've donated a million dollars and we're asking for international contributions to that fund for countries like Albania that don't have the resources but are willing to take the MEK in. And we need to press foreign captials to take them in because until they're out, they're not going to be safe and we don't want anyone else to get hurt. We don't want anymore Americans to get hurt in Iraq, we don't want anymore Iraqis to get hurt in Iraq and we don't want any more residents of Camp Liberty to get hurt in Iraq and until they're out of Iraq, they're not going to be safe. This is an international crisis and we need international help and support.

US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee: May I follow -- May I just have a minute more to follow up with Mr. McGurk, Secretary McGurk? And I hear the passion in your voice but let me just say this. We're in an open hearing. You know where they are. Who is going to rescue them? Whose responsibility will it be to get them from where they are into safe haven? Because otherwise, we're leaving -- we're leaving Maliki now without responsibility. We're saying, and you're documenting that they're not there. Let me just say that when my government speaks, I try with my best heart and mind to believe it. But I've got to see them alive and well to believe that they're not where I think they are, they're in a pointed purse. I'm glad to here that but I want them to be safe but I want them to be in the arms of their loved ones or at least able to be recognized by their loved one that they're safe somewhere. So can that be done in the next 48 hours? Can we have a-a manner that indicates that they are safe?

Brett McGurk: I will repeat here a statement that we issued on September 16th and it's notable and I was going to mention this in my colloquy with my Congressman to my left, that within hours of the attack, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Score issued a statement praising the attack. We issued a statement on September 16th calling on the government of Iran to use whatever influence it may have with groups that might be holding these missing persons to secure their immediate release. And I can talk more about details and the status of these individuals. And I've briefed some members of the Subcommittee. I'd be happy to follow up.

Brett McGurk and the US government are not believed on this statement and, as we noted when we reported the above exchange, the whereabouts shouldn't be classified.

If the US was physically protecting the 7, that might -- briefly -- be a reason for not giving their whereabouts. That is not what the government has suggested. So if they're being held against their will by the Iranian government or a proxy for the Iranian government -- or by Nouri or a proxy for Nouri's government -- newsflash, the ones doing the holding no where the 7 are being held.

It's not classified and kept from the holders. So why the need for the State Dept to play like the location cannot be spoken of?

Tuesday Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It was a testy hearing. John needs to stop being so damn combative in hearings. He also needs to stop insisting over and over that he get to yammer on. There's a five minute rule in House hearings. He was often rude (but at least he spread it around -- he was rude to Republicans and to Democrats). .

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: And lastly, two issues. Regarding Camp Ashraf, are the Ashraf 7 being held in Iran or are they in Iraq? And, Mr. Secretary, [. . .]

He went on and on. I'm not including it. I'd love to include the insult to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (and I agreed with him 100% on that), for example that took place in the exchange that followed Ros-Lehtinen, but I don't have the time. As it is, I'm pushing back coverage of another hearing to Monday's snapshot. So we'll ignore all of his words that had nothing to do with Camp Ashraf and pick up here.

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: If you could answer the Ashraf and the Cuba question?

Secretary John Kerry: Beg your pardon?

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: If you could answer the question about Ashraf --

Secretary John Kerry: The question of Ashraf was where-where are they?

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Iran or Iraq?

Secretary John Kerry: Well they're in Iraq.

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: They're in Iraq?

Secretary John Kerry: The people.

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: The seven hostages that were taken from Ashraf?

Secretary John Kerry: I-I-I . . .

US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: They have not -- We have not known where they are.

Kerry spoke with the people sitting behind him, then returned to the microphone.

Secretary of State John Kerry: Uh, I can talk to you about that in classified session.

We're talking about the Ashraf residents so, before we note one more exchange, let's include the overview on the Ashraf community. As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty. All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty). Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents. 3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1st. Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents. It was during that attack that the 7 hostages were taken.

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: I am introducing a bill today that will allow 3,000 refugees from Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty -- now Camp Liberty -- status --refugee status and thus will permit them to be able to come to the United States. Hundreds of these people have been slaughtered. They live under constant threat of being murdered, we know that. And, uh-uh, will this administration be supporting my legislation to prevent these people from being slaughtered by this pro-Mullah regime that we have in Iraq now?

Secretary John Kerry: Well Congressman, I've gone to the lengths of appointing a special representative to work exclusively to get the, uh, --

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: I'm just asking about my legislation.

Secretary John Kerry: Well I need to see the legislation but in principle we're trying to find a place for --

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: So in principle -- you would agree with letting these refugees have status -- refugee status so they can come here

Secretary John Kerry: Uh, we are -- We're trying to find a place for them to go now.

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: Okay, so in principle --

Secretary John Kerry: In principle, I'd like to see the legislation but I can't speak for the President.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Another prison break . . ."
"Sy Hersh's hidden blockbuster?"

"Nikita: Episode four"

"scandal (where sally and cyrus cover up murder)"

"Actors"

"Syria"

"Give him amnesty"

"I hope they were playing stupid"

"More questions from Sibel Edmonds"

"3 can casserole in the Kitchen"

"He's a corporate politician"

"Dylan's a thief"

"His new line of defense"

"THIS JUST IN! LATEST SPIN!"

Friday, December 13, 2013

His new line of defense

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

AS HIS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AT THE MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR NELSON MANDELA CONTINUES TO RESULT IN CRITICISM, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO ATTEMPT TO OFFER NEW EXCUSES.

THIS MORNING, THESE REPORTERS AND SEVEN OTHERS WERE INVITED INTO THE OVAL OFFICE TO HEAR THE LATEST EXPLANATION.

"CHARLES NELSON REILLY," BARRY O EXPLAINED. "THAT'S WHO I THOUGHT THE MEMORIAL WAS FOR. THE SELFIE AND THE GRINS AND LAUGHTER? I FELT I WAS HONORING THE SPIRIT OF CHARLES NELSON REILLY. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE SELFIE THAT MICHELLE INFORMED ME THE MEMORIAL WAS ACTUALLY FOR NELSON MANDELA -- NOT CHARLES NELSON REILLY STAR OF MATCH GAME, MATCH GAME '74, MATCH GAME P.M. AND LIDSVILLE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Granted, the April hearing wasn't a Senate VA hearing. That's probably why it was an important hearing. April 23rd, Senator Patty Murray, as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, chaired a hearing. It is the most important hearing for veterans in 2013. It was, it remains, the most important hearing. Committee Chair Murray, of course, is the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and she continues to serve on the Senate VA Committee.

In real time, we covered the pertinent exchange at length. I'm both (a) not in the mood and (b) not going to waste space on it. So we'll do a small excerpt.

For those who don't know, just to set this up, the VA claims system had a huge backlog and, at this hearing, Shinseki and the always laughable Alison Hickey explained a new way of doing things. And the press just ignored it and continues to. It's a shell game. Let's go to the excerpt.

Chair Patty Murray: As I mentioned, you have a new announcement of a new initiative to expedite claims that have been waiting for over a year. And that's encouraging and I'm glad to see that the Department's taking action but I do have some questions about how it is going to be implemented. And I wanted to ask you, if the VA determines the veteran's final rating is lower than the provisional rating, will the Department seek to recover money that's already been paid to that veteran?

Secretary Eric Shinseki: Madam Chairman, uh, you know, that's a question. I, uh, I-I, what I would say is, I -- our -- historically, when we've established a standard for a veteran, we've usually stayed with that and, uh, let me call on Secretary Hickey here but my-my intent is that the provisional rating that's provided will be on those issues for which we have clarity and documentation and we can render a, uh, a decision. For issues that, uh, where documentation isn't provided, those are the issues that remain open up to a year, for veterans to locate, with our help even, documentation that would, uh, allow us to,uh, make a decision there. Uh, Secretary Hickey.

Allison Hickey: Chairman Murray, thank you for the question, for your, uh, interest in the initiative which we think is, uh, really important to, uh, ensure that we're, uh, taking care of those veterans who have waited the longest while we completed the more than 260,000 Agent Orange claims to take care of our Vietnam veterans over the last two and a half years. We-we, uh - We are using the provisions that allow us to make good decisions so we will continue, uhm, under this provisional criteria to have -- to use service treatment, to use private medical records, to use the information available to our, uhm, on our veterans in terms of the nature and character of their service. So all the similar evidence we have used in previous decisions we will use again to ensure that we, uh, don't make any of those kinds of decisions. I don't expect to see any of those decisions, uh, where we overcompensate for, uh, for a claim. Uhm, the other thing that that we will do is we will, uh, keep the reason for the provisional decision, we put a really huge safety net under every one of our veterans, we're, uh, going to keep the record for a whole year there -- the ability for our veterans to come back with additional evidence. Uh, uhm, uh, and we will keep asking if --

Chair Patty Murray: So the additional year will only be to provide information to have an additional claim, not to lower the claim?

Allison Hickey: Uh, th-the, uh, the reason for the year is to allow to increase the rating, uh, if necessary so I think in -- The advantage is our veterans for the additional year. Uh, and then they still have after that, the same appeal, uh, processes that they've had in the past. So we don't anticipate, uh, having, uhm, uh, conditions where we overpay veterans under this initiative.

In real time, reporting on that hearing the day it took place, I wrote:

What the VA is proposing is that a temporary rating be created. This temporary rating may become permanent. Or it might increase or it might decrease. If you're a veteran qualifying for some small-business program based on your rating, how does this impact that? Hickey gave no response about that or how the temporary claim would effect anything.
Now I think she's an idiot who should be fired. But can you be that stupid that when asked a direct question, you completely miss it? Maybe so. Maybe Allison Hickey is The Dumbest Person In The World. However, I just see her as deeply dishonest.
As deeply dishonest is the new program that's being discussed.
Murray is correct. This is going mean "increasing the workload by requiring two" or more "ratings decisions instead of one." And this is only more clear when Hickey asserts that after a veteran receives a rating he or she finds less than satisfactory and they return with more information, Hickey's words, "we will expedite that claim to the front of the line."
What's really going on here?
The VA has bad press because they've not eliminated the claims backlog, they have not reduced the backlog. They have been given everything they've asked for. Congress has actually spent the last years asking them, "Is that all you need? What else can we do to help you with this?" VA has insisted they had all they needed.
So this is VA's problem. At the hearing, Senator Tammy Baldwin observed, "Veterans don't want to hear about new claims or new processes, they want results and so do I." She's correct. However, this program's not about veterans, it's about the press. This is a distraction that will create the illusion of something new which, the VA hopes, will garner good press.
In what world, when you're failing at the claims system, are you allowed to create a new system that will pull more employees away?

There were members of the press at that hearing.

They ignored this significant development/change.

They have since falsely reported on the 'success' of the VA with the backlog.

And Chair Sanders was praising them yesterday. 'Oh, goodness, you're reducing the backlog.'

No, they're not.

They're slapping on 'provisional decisions' to rush these through so they can move them into the 'decided' column. Even though they're not.

I have no problem with a hasty VA decision -- which comes with a real appeal process. I have no fear that veterans are trying to game the system. Unlike Senator Jon Tester, I don't have visions of them smoking and drinking and see that as abuse of the system. I think -- whether they smoke, drink, dip, what have you -- they're trying to get the health care they were promised. Promises were made, promises need to be kept.

But the provisional 'ratings'? The VA can change them themselves -- even if the veteran doesn't appeal. Why are these temporary calls being issued?

It's a shell game to move the numbers without really doing so.

"Reducing the backlog at the expense of accuracy is not acceptable," Chair Sanders declared Wednesday morning.

Two days after the April 23rd hearing, Mark Flatten (Washington Examiner) did something none of his peers could do, he reported on veterans fears (justifiable) about the VA's new rating:

Under the new plan, VA will issue a "provisional" rating within 60 days on cases two years old or more. Veterans would then have a year to submit new evidence to increase their rating, or ask that the rating be made final so they can file an appeal.
The apparent catch is that issuing the provisional rating may lead to creation of a new case, thus letting VA "close" the old one when in fact the veteran's claim remains outstanding.
Ronald Robinson, president of the AFGE union local that represents VA claims workers in Columbia, S.C., said the new rules are nothing more than an effort to make the agency's sinking statistics look better.

Chair Sanders declared at yesterday's hearing, "Veterans are still waiting too long for a decision. And the Inspector General to find issues with the quality, with the quality of the work. I am concerned by the most recent IG findings which found significant problems with the provisional decisions reviewed at the Los Angeles regional office."

Imagine that.

Problems with the provisional ratings?

Who could have seen that happening?

I said we'd cover a December House Veterans Affairs Subcomittee and I never did. Sorry. I don't like writing about this topic. I can go on over and over about Tim Arango's September 2012 report for the New York Times where US President Barack Obama sent another "unit of Army Special Operations soldiers" into Iraq in the fall of 2012 -- so much for the 'withdrawal.'

But this nonsense? Senators were present when this new 'system' was announced. The press was as well. And yet they've both failed on this issue. Veterans groups have raised concerns and yet both groups continue to fail and every other month some mouth breathing press loser is trumpeting 'the numbers' and 'the reductions' and never noting provisional ratings or what's really going on.

At the December 4th hearing, the VA's Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations, Sondra F. McCauley was one of the witnesses.

Deputy Assistant IG Sondra McCauley: On April 19, 2013, VBA implemented a special initiative to address the oldest pending disability claims in the current backlog. VBA stated the intent of the initiative was to work all claims pending for more than 2 years within 60 days, beginning April 19, 2013. VAROs were directed to devote all RVSRs and as many Veterans Service Representatives as needed to ensure all claims pending over 2-year old were processed and completed. According to VBA, RVSRs were to immediately process the 2-year old claims based on the available evidence in the veterans' claims folders. Further, rating decisions produced were to be considered provisional ratings unless all evidence in support of the claims had already been received (and the claim was considered ready-to-rate) or the ratings assigned provided the highest evaluation for the particular diagnostic code for each claimed issue. However, if medical examination reports or other Federal records were needed, these older claims could not be processed as provisional rating decisions. During one review errors were identified at the Los Angeles VARO when leadership provided conflicting guidance on the proper procedures for processing provisional rating decisions. We determined 10 -- 91 percent -- of 11 provisional rating decisions we reviewed were not compliant with VBA's guidance related to the 2-year claims processing initiative. Eight of the 10 provisional decisions were determined to be non- compliant because the rating decisions were made without supporting VA medical examinations as required. One claim was decided without Service Treatment Records, which are considered Federal records and must be obtained by VARO staff prior to rendering a provisional rating decision. In the remaining case, the provisional rating was controlled by a future diary that scheduled the claim for review in 2 years instead of 1 year as required. Requiring a rating decision to be rendered before a medical examination is obtained as a basis for a decision is in conflict with VBA policy. On May 14, 2013, conflicting guidance was sent to the Los Angeles VARO staff via an e-mail from the VARO Director’s office. The guidance incorrectly stated all 2-year old cases requiring a medical examination must have the medical examinations ordered by May 15, 2013. This conflicts with VBA guidance because if a medical examination was required to decide a claim, the claim could not be completed as a provisional decision until staff obtained the necessary medical examinations. The guidance also incorrectly indicated that any claims with medical examinations not completed by June 3, 2013, were to be decided by a provisional rating.
We are concerned similar errors may exist among other provisional rating decisions completed by the Los Angeles VARO after the conflicting guidance was issued. VBA provided data that revealed the Los Angeles VARO completed 532 provisional rating decisions between April 19 – June 19, 2013. VARO staff completed 470 of those 532 provisional decisions claims after the conflicting guidance was disseminated on May 14, 2013. All 10 provisional rating decisions that we identified as non-compliant were completed after this date. We recommended that VBA review all of the provisional rating decisions completed by the Los Angeles VARO after the conflicting guidance was issued to ensure they are accurate.

So in the only examination thus far, 90% of the provisional ratings in the LA area did not follow the (limited) procedures and are most likely incorrect. The new rating is prompting the IG to call for all of the LA area's provisional ratings to be reviewed.

"In fact, it appears the employees were encouraged to violate VA policies," Senator Johnny Isakson noted yesterday of the IG findings on the LA area. He noted that the IG recommendation of a review of all provisional rating decisions had been completed and the VA founds "100s that contained errors."

Hundreds. Plural. And we're only talking 532 decisions.

Senator Patty Murray noted what she's hearing from veterans in Washington state, "[. . .] I have heard repeatedly from veterans that they were confused and frustrated with the provisional rating process. Some believe their claims have been flat out rejected and others didn't understand that they have a year to submit additional evidence. Secretary Hickey, we need to hear more from you today about how the VA's going to improve outreach and communication with veterans [. . .]" [Note, at the end of yesterday's snapshot, the press release issued by Senator Murrary's office can be read.]

"During Committee oversight," Chair Sanders declared yesterday morning, "my staff has identified clear and unmistakable errors in provisional rating decisions."

Appearing before the Committee was the VA's Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey. In her opening remarks, Hickey declared, "In June, VA completed the first phase of the initiative, which focused on all claims that had been pending over 2 years. While some claims from that category were still outstanding due to the unavailability of a claimant and other unique circumstances, approximately 99 percent of these 2-year claims (over 67,000) had been processed for Veterans, eliminating those claims from the backlog. Since that milestone, VBA claims processors have focused on completing the claims of Veterans who have been waiting over 1 year for a decision. VA has processed approximately 96 percent of all 513,000 claims pending over 1 year."

Chair Bernie Sanders noted Shinseki's proposed goal for 2015, 125 claims processed within 125 days processed with 98% accuracy. Sanders wanted to know if VA was "on track to achieve the Secretary's goal" by 2015. Hickey responded that "we are on track barring any implications to our full" budget request for 2014 Fiscal Year, she stated they would meet the goal. We'll note this exchange.

Chair Bernie Sanders: In April of this year, VA rolled out an initiative to provide decisions on the claims that have been pending the longest. While I appreciate VA's efforts to provide the veterans that have been waiting the longest with decisions, I continue to have concerns about this initiative. The IG, the Inspector General's, recent findings regarding provisional ratings decisions at the Los Angeles regional office which found a number of errors was very, very concerning. I understand the office corrected the inappropriate guidance that was issued to staff in June and is now in the process of correcting any errors in claims which may have been improperly adjudicated. So this IG report is very, very concerning to many of us. Can you explain to this Committee the actions that have been taken to remedy the problems in Los Angeles.

Allison Hickey: Uh, Chairman, I absolute can do that but let me first --

I'm not Bernie Sanders. I don't give a damn about Allison Hickey whose ass should have been fired long ago. She was asked a question. I'm not going to waste my time including her distractions and her efforts to avoid answering by eating up time.She said "the regional office knew in one week." In one week of implementation, the regional office knew. May 14th

The obvious question there is, if they knew one week after it was implemented, (that would be May 21st) why did the IG find errors June 19th?

If, as Hickey stammer, "they themselves identified within a week," why weren't they fixed. How incompetent is management at the VA?

I guess the answer to that question was staring at the Committee members (Allison Hickey).

3 veterans at the hearing that I spoke with yesterday self-identified as Democrats but stated that maybe the answer for veterans is to have one party in charge of the Senate and another in charge of the White House? It was felt that the Committee is largely toothless, offers supposed indignation ("weakly stated," one veteran said) and then smooths over everything with ridiculous comments like Brown's that a lecture is not needed. It was noted that Ranking Member Richard Burr would be better right now as Chair Burr because he's not "playing footsie" with the VA. Let's move to some of his exchange.

Ranking Member Richard Burr corrected Hickey's claims (lies) that the leadership knew in one week of the LA problems and immediately addressed them. Under strong questioning from Burr, Hickey did admit that the same mistakes continued to happen for weeks

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Were provisional decisions included in determining the number of claims VA has completed during the calendar year 2013?

Allison Hickey: I'm going to ask -- Well -- She's just told me "yes" so I will answer "yes" on behalf of Deputy Under Secretary. There were 14,000 of those claims which were 3% of all of the claims we had done in the oldest claim initiative which was 67,000 two-years-and-older 512,000 one-year-and-older.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: You - you highlighted 90% quality or accuracy, you used both words. Last week, the American Legion testified and I quote, "VA's accuracy statistics from the Monday accuracy reports are not consitent with the review of recently adjudicated claims as conducted by the American Legion. According to the Legion, they reviewed 260 decisions and found errors in 55%. Also National Veterans Legal Service Program testified that current error rate was somewhere between 30 and 40% -- in some RO's it's higher. Are they wrong?

Allison Hickey: Uhm, uh, so Senator Burr, they -- It's an apple and orange discussion, if I may have a moment to clarify that. First of all, let me just state for the record and for every time I talk on this subject anywhere: We will not trade production for quality. It is an and equation. Both must rise which is why it's 125 and 98. But there is a very different way the IG and others are looking at issues then we do. I will tell you that our process has been validated by an external agency --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Ma'am, let me ask my question again: Are they wrong?

Allison Hickey: Uhm. Uh-uh-uh. [Laughing] Senator Burr, they are right for the way they look at it, we are right for the way we measure it which is statistically --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: General, General. They're the customer, aren't they?

Allison Hickey: Actually, the veteran, the family member and the survivor are my customers, Senator.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Yeah and these are the organizations that represent them --

Allison Hickey: They are, Senator

Ranking Member Richard Burr: -- and -- Should this Committee believe that there's any VSO in America that believes that the accuracy or the quality is at 97% right now?

Allison Hickey: Uhhhh, Senator Burr, I would ask you to ask them for their opinions, I can't speak for them.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: They testified on it. But that's not necessarily something that computes.

Allison Hickey: Senator Burr, I have a statistically valid validated process that goes further --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: I asked -- I asked a very simple question: Are they wrong? And I guess the answer is "yes" because you're saying your statistics are different than what their review has been.

Allison Hickey: They have a different process, Senator.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Okay. According to VA's Monday Morning Workload Reports, there are at least 266,000 appeals that have not been resolved. That's about 100,000 more than were pending five years ago although appeals are not counted in VA's backlog statistics, they represent individuals who have yet to know what benefits they will receive. Do the performance standards for regional office directors and service center managers include how quickly and accurately they're handling appeals

Allison Hickey: So Senator Burr the answer is -- the simple answer to your question is yes, they do. However, I would also tell you that a veteran does know our opinion to an answer on their claim. Uhm, uh, they get and, uh, many cases, they are deriving resources uh-uh associated with that claim already even though they might be appealing only a part in piece of-of our decision.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: So you have a metrics that you use to determine this?

Allison Hickey: We absolutely have metrics on --

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Would you provide that metrics for the Committee?

Allison Hickey: We will do that, sir.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: On average, how long have those 266,000 appeals been pending?

Allison Hickey: Uh, Senator, the Chairman cites some, uh, 800 days so I will, uh, accept th--

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Do you track, does the VA track that?

Allison Hickey: We do, Senator Burr.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: Okay. At what point is an appeal -- is an appeal considered to be backlogged?

Allison Hickey: We do not have a backlog number for appeals.

We need to stop it there. But hopefully you're getting what the press didn't. The VA does not include "appeals" in the backog. In April, they came up with the 'clever' (dishonest) policy to just slap decisions on claims -- provisional ratings. And that moved them out of the backlog. Every one of those 'provisional ratings' may be appealed. The VA doesn't care, it doesn't count appeals as part of the 'backlog.'

You'd care if you went from an unacceptable 200 day wait to an 800 day wait.

But the press whores for the VA. They're too stupid to do their damn job. This was all apparent at the April 23rd hearing. I'm not a genius and it was obvious to me then. This is a con game and veterans are getting very outraged while it continues and people like Senator Sherrod Brown look the other way and insist that the VA doesn't need a lecture.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"9 killed and 15 injured"
"Leahy: In any country, this legal interpretation i..."
"Arrow (Bye-bye Barry)"
"The lying government"
"Lying Photo Ops"
"glenn greenwald's back to power bottom status"
"Look at the Twittering fool"
"The Progressive honkeys can't stop pimping racism"
"Sibel has Glenn's number"
"Glenn Greenwald is a little bitch"
"Glenn gets called out"
"I stand with Sibel"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Disgraceful Barack"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S THE ETERNAL DISGRACE!""

Cedric's Big Mix

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

He has more product

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

He gets another award

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Tony The Pimp Blair

Friday, December 13, 2013

His new line of defense

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix