Wednesday, February 29, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's slammed
with more violence, continued attention to Parliament wanting to provide
themselves armored vehicles, sequestering and other issues are touched on by
Congress' Veterans Affairs Committee, Hillary Clinton apparently wants to take a
torch to her poll numbers as she makes illogical and unbelievable statements
about Camp Ashraf residents, and more.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: We got several hundred thousand claims
for Agent Orange in our backlog. How long have they been fighting it? Thirty,
forty years. People get sicker fighting the bureaucracy than they did with the
Agent Orange. So you know what we ought to do -- aside from greatly expanding
eligibility to boots on the ground, to the blue waters, to the blue skies and
Thailand and Cambodia and Laos and Guam? We ought to honor those Agent Orange
claims today. You know, let's give people the peace that they deserve. Let's
give you finally some closure here. And, you know, they're telling us, "It costs
too much." I don't know if it's a billion dollars or two billion dollars. I
don't care what it is frankly. You don't think we owe it to you? We owe it to
you.
US House Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs
Committee which held a hearing yesterday morning. "We're hear today to hear the DAV
legislative priorities for the year, : US House Rep Jeff Miller declared at the
start of th ehearing. Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs
Committee which was holding a joint-hearing with the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee which Senator Patty Murray chairs. Appearing before the Committees
were representatives with the Disabled American Veterans -- National Commander Donald
Samuel, Garry Augustine (National Service Director), Joseph Violante (National
Legislative Director), Barry Jesinoski (Executive Director, Washington
Headquarters), Arthur Wilson (National Adjutant), Ron Minter (National Director
of Voluntary Service) and Patrice Rapsiand (National Commander, Disabled
American Veterans Auxillary). DAV, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America and
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America are the authors of the
Independent Budget which contains
various budget recommendations for VA and the programs that serve veterans.
This Independent Budget -- focused on the needs of veterans -- is an independent
guideline the Congress can use to contrast with what the White House is asking
for to see if the needs of veterans -- outlined in the Independent Budget ---
are being met by the administration's proposed budget.
We'll note the following exchange from today's hearing covering a wide
range of issues.
Chair Patty Murray: I did want to ask you about health care
funding. The VA's budget proposal reflects a very real committment to provides
veterans with the care they need VA's budget request for medical care is,
however, lower than the amount recommenedd by the Independent Budget. Can you
tell us what the DAV's most significant concern with the administration's
request for health care is?
National Commander Donald Smith: I think I am going to refer that
question to Mr. Violante.
Joseph Violante: Chairman Murray, thank you for that question.
You've been a strong advocate for veterans. And our biggest concern is, number
one we believe they're about 1.5 billion dollars below where they need to be. I
know a GAO report came out yesterday. I have not had the opportunity to review
it. However, I understand that once again, they've inidicated that the
management efficiences that have been identified by VA over the last several
years. They cannot truly say that VA has generated any savings from those.
That's a concern. Last year, the Secretary carried over $1.1 billion yet we
continue to hear from our members around the country and from VA employees that
they were short of funds, that Veterans couldn't get the service that they were
eligible for because of the shortfall. So we have concerns. We would certainly
love Congress to get VA in here to question them, to find out, again, why they
aren't hiring people they need for homeless? Why veterans aren't able to
properly access the care and to get what they deserve?
Chair Patty Murray: Okay, I very much appreciate that. Let me ask
you about another issue I brought up in my opening statement and that is
construction funding. The Presiden't's request for major and minor construction
is significantly less than the Independent Budget recommendation. I'm really
disappointed in the size of the gap between what they say they need and what we
need to bring our facilities up to date. And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Samuels,
failing to close that gap, what does that mean for our veterans across the
country?
Joseph Violante: Madame Chairman, I'll go ahead and answer that
question also. You know, it reminds me a lot of what happened in '04 and '05.
And you remember very well in '05 when you and Senator [Daniel] Akaka tried to
have an amendment passed in the Senate to increase funding by $1.5 billion for
VA and at that time we were hearing horror stories from around the country about
maintenance problems, about Togus, Maine where bricks were falling off the
building and they had to put scaffolding up to protect veterans as they entered,
other faciliites, where the air conditioning went down and the surgical units
had to be closed because there wasn't air conditioning and the ability to get
that fixed, MRIs that couldn't be repaired. And all of these items as well as
building necessary or enhanced leases to provide the services that are needed in
certain areas. So as that gap continues to widen, I think we're going to see
many more of those same problems where VA is not going to be able to ensure the
safety of the men and women coming for services.
Chair Patty Murray: Okay and this is an area I'm going to continue
to follow. I care deeply about this and I've seen exactly what you're talking
about so this is one that I will follow up and push very hard. And finally,
Commander, I wanted to ask you -- and I really want to thank the DAV for working
closely with me on the Women's Veterans Bill and I look forward to working with
you to continue to make sure that all the women coming into the VA system have
the kind of quality care that they need after serving our country. But I want to
[applause] as the last women standing up here, I will ask you, what more needs
to be done to address the serious shortcomings that women are seeing as they
come into our VA facilities?
Barry Jesinoski: Chairman Murray, I'll take that question. First of
all, thank you for your extremely staunch advocacy in this area. DAV stands with
you in your concern and care for our women veterans. And Secretary Shinseki has
stated that women veterans are a priority for VA. And they're going down the
right track, we believe, so we're looking for your strong oversight as they
continue to train their personnel and to ensure that all the areas of care are
open to our women veterans whether that be military sexual trauma, homelessness
and post-deployment mental healt. But there is much to be done, for sure, and,
quite frankly, we're not finished until or unless all of our women veterans can
walk down the halls of our VA medical centers with the same ease and comfort and
receive the same level of care and breadth of care as their male
counterparts.
Chair Patty Murray: I appreciate that and I would add one more
challenge to all of us and it's what I hear from women veterans all the time,
it's that they don't indentify themselves as veterans, they don't write it on
their resumes when they put it out there, their kids don't call and have their
mom's call and have their moms come to school and tell their experiences as a
veteran. They don't tell their neighbors. We need to give women the power to
say, "I'm a veteran" and be proud of that. And I want to work with all of you to
do that. One last question and I will turn it over to Senator [John] Boozman for
his questions, last year, we both talked about -- Chairman Miller and I both
talked about the Vow to Hire Heroes Act -- a very important first step in
ensuring that we are employing our veterans nationwide. I did want to ask you
what more can be done to help our service disabled veterans overcome some of
their barriers to employment that I'm hearing about and I wondered if you could
respond to that?
Joseph Violante: There's a lot more that needs to be done --
particularly for service disabled veterans. And, if I could, Madame Chairman,
I'd like to get back to you in writing on that to elaborate as to all of the
things that need to be looked at in that particular area.
Chair Patty Murray: Okay, very good. I look forward to your
response on that.
Elsewhere in the hearing, the issue of sequestration was raised. It's
expected to that the federal government's buget will result in
sequestration -- that cuts to reach X amount were not made and as a
result automatic cuts will be imposed on many departments (and programs)
across the board. Is the VA exempt or not? That's been an issue that
several members of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees have
been trying to get answered (with no success). Chair Jeff Miller
noted, "We believe that VA is exempt." He stated that it should be but
if it is not, "we have to we'll make those statutory changes." Chair
Patty Murray declared she was "confident" that sequestering would not
effect VA but that she wants "clarity" on the matter. CORRECTION:
Senator Murray questioned Eric Shinseki on Wednesday.
This is an issue that's bothering a number of veterans because where would
the money come from if the VA faces automatic across the board cuts. I agree
with Chair Jeff Miller's earlier statements prior to today's hearing, that the
administration should have addressed this issue publicly some time ago so that
it wasn't so up in the air and confusing and, yes, distressing to veterans and
their families.
Chair Patty Murray noted during the hearing that she had heard from
veterans in her home state of Washington at a town hall she held this month and
they listed a number of issue -- including continued problems "with the
dysfunction of the claims system," unemployment, and "unacceptable long wait
lines for mental health care" which still doesn't result in "getting the type of
mental health care they need." Ranking Member Bob Filner noted that the men and
women of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are "becoming homeless faster than you
who have come back from Vietnam" and that they were "committing suicide at a
higher rate."
Now we're dropping back to the February 15th House Veterans Affairs Committee
hearing for just a second.:
Homelessness was touched on by US House Reps Corrine Brown and Dr.
Phil Roe. We're ignoring that for two reasons. 1) Roe brought up that once a
case worker has X number of clients, the VA isn't issuing vouchers so even
though there is space a veterans left sleeping on the street or somewhere else
(he or she receives no voucher). Shinseki noted that homeless veterans were
decreasing. Are they? Or is this program -- which tracks beds used in shelters
-- not factoring in that veterans aren't receiving vouchers if their caseworker
is maxed out? That's not addressed and until it is, I'm not interested in going
into the figures.
I have an answer on that from a friend at VA and from a reporter who covers
the story in Dr. Roe home state: If they're not using the beds, they're not
being counted. So if vouchers exist but aren't being handed out -- for whatever
reasons -- then those not in the shelter beds are not being tabulated in the VA
count.
So we know the answer to that. And now we can pick up with Dr. Phil Roe
who spoke briefly but did a really strong walk through on this voucher
issue.
US House Rep Phil Roe: Homelessness. I know you're involved in
that. And one of the things that's holding up -- and this is something that
we've got to stick the VA with -- our case managers. We have 10,000 vouchers for
our homeless veterans but they can't get those vouchers unless there's a case
manager. And right now, in my own district, we've got vouchers we can't use
because the VA, since November, hasn't hired a case manager to manage those.
That's ridiculous when you're going through the winter, you've got a veteran
sitting outside and the VA hasn't hired one person -- because one takes care of
25 veterans, they have to have one person. So if we're going to have 10,000 more
vouchers at 70-something million dollars, it does the veteran no good who's
outside unless the VA simultaneously trains and hires 400 case managers. They
need to do that. So I guess a real quick question I have for you is what -- as a
veterans service officer with obviously decades of experience -- what's the
single biggest issue you're running across that we coluld help you with up
here?
National Commander Donald Samuels: Well I would say, one, of
course, is the backlog, the claims processing backlog. And of course the
Secretary and our staff is working with the Secretary on trying to resolve that
with a new IT programs coming in, pilot programs that the Secretary's going to
introduce. But I would say that is one of the biggest problems that we hear from
vetetan. Saying Why does it take two years to get a decision? Why does it take
nine months to get a decision? I could ask my staff to respond more on that
question but that is -- that is a big issue. If you're a service officer sitting
in the bunker in a state, they constantly get calls where veterans are calling
to check on the status of their claim because they have not gotten a decision on
it.
Baghdad was slammed by a bombing. BBC News notes it was a car bombing and that the tolls are at
least 3 dead and nine injured. Al Rafidayn
reports that the police quickly closed the scene to traffic. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports a Tuk Khurmatu car bombing
claimed the lives of 2 police officers, 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 Iraqi military
officer while leaving two more soldiers, a police officer and a bystander
injured and that Mosul saw a roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police
officer and left three more injured while a car bombing left three civilians
injured and "shepherd Abdel Karim Abdel Hamid" died from a landmine which
injured two of his brothers in Kirkuk. In addition, Dunlop notes Sahwa was
targeted last night with an attack on a Diyala Province checkpoint claiming the
life of 1 Sahwa and leaving two more injured. Xinhua adds, "In
Iraq's western province of Anbar, a roadside bomb struck a civilian car on a
main road near the city of Hit, some 160 km west, killing a civilian and
wounding three others aboard, a source from the provincial operations command
told Xinhua on condition of anonymity."
On violence, Al Rafidayn
notes that approximately 69,000 Iraqis have died from 2004 to last year as a
result of violence. These numbers come from the Ministry of Health and the
Ministry of National Security. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) notes that these
"numbers are significantly lower than previous figures that cover a shorter time
span, including from Iraq's own human rights ministry. The human rights
ministry said in an October 2009 report that 85,694 people were killed from 2004
to 2008." Dunlop also notes Iraq Body Count's number for 2003 through the end
of 2011 (114,584).
Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) observes that Adnan al-Assadi,
the Deputy Interior Minister, states that "six prominent Sunni armed groups say
they will fight on to drive the last Americans from Iraqi soil and topple 'the
occupation government'." Pay attention to this from al-Salhy, "The groups
include al-Qaeda's Iraq wing, the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, the
Islamic Army, the Mujahedeen Army, the Rashideen Army and Ansar al-Sunnah, Asadi
said." Did you catch that? No, not all physically fighting the occupation and/or
Nouri's puppet government are "al Qaeda in Iraq."
Violence is among many topics that Dirk Adriaensens of the BRussels
Tribunal Executive Committee explores in a new piece at Truthout that that suffers at
the beginning. It has many important points to it but the beginning isn't just
'weak.'
Adriansens notes the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi
Pilay's public dismay over the executions in Iraq. He then attempts to tie that
into a US trial. That's nonsense and it's offensive. You don't have to like the
verdict, you may feel that someone guilty went free but there's a world of
difference between feeling someone 'beat the system' and executing people from
forced confessions. I haven't commented on that case, I have no public opinion
on that case. You can and you can feel the US Marine got a fair trial, got away
with murder, or whatever. But don't compare a verdict you don't like that you
think set someone guilty free with putting to death innocent people.
There are people around the world who have made it their life's work to
overturn death penalties and they grasp the difference (some of whom will find
the comparison being made offensive). You've taken disimilar objects and
pretended you compared them when you did no such thing. I know the law and like
some people (I would hope most people), I would prefer a guilty person walk to
an innocent person being punished (and I oppose the death penalty). That is why
the US has the legal system it does, because of that belief. A verdict you
disagree with where someone walks on charges is not the same thing as someone
wrongfully put to death.
This is not a quibble. This is a major point. As the piece progresses, it
has many wonderful passages. One of the most interesting sections of the essay
is this:
"The wave of attacks, carried out
mainly by Sunni extremists from Al-Qaeda in Iraq against Shia communities, has
alarmed many who fear the country could descend into chaos once more, with the
government itself acknowledging it is not capable of ensuring security on its
own."(82) This is the story
that we constantly hear in the media, blaming the "Sunni" terrorist group
al-Qaeda, which carries out attacks against the "Shiite" population. What is
most saddening is that this particular sentence was written by IRIN, a news
service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Why are
the media so sure that it is "Sunni" al-Qaeda killing innocent Shiites?
Let me put the record straight: in
recent weeks there have been several bomb attacks in Ramadi, Adamiya in Baghdad,
Mosul, Haditha, Diyala, Tikrit, Fallujah etc., all Sunni areas. The wave of
attacks is nationwide. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
should check out the Iraqi press accounts of the previous weeks.
Then why do the Western media and
IRIN focus on al-Qaeda and declare the Shiite population the main victims?
It is relevant to remind the public
of the ruthless killings perpetrated by Shiites against Shiites. For example, on
27 February 2009, The New York Times reported that 28 members of a Shiite
messianic cult responsible for brutal attacks on Shiite pilgrims in Iraq were
sentenced to death in the federal court in Dhi Qar Province. The condemned were
members of the Followers of the Mahdi, itself a part of the Soldiers of Heaven
or Jund As-Samaa, a destructive cult that believes that sowing chaos will pave
the way for the coming of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam, who disappeared in the ninth
century and who - Shiites believe - will return as a savior of humanity.
Nineteen other members of the group were sentenced to life imprisonment, and six
were acquitted, said the court official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because he was not authorized to speak publicly.(83)
And why is there no mention of the
thousands of Sunnis who were recently arrested and detained by the government?
Why don't the mainstream media write about the virulent sectarian politics of
Maliki, who recently declared that his primary identity is "Shia"?
Why is there no mention of recent
"suspicious incidents" that have been reported in the Iraqi press? For example:
On January 25, a senior source at
the Iraqi Ministry of Transport confirmed to Al-Mada daily newspaper that the
British security company assigned to security control at Bagdad airport caught a
Czech security team from the Czech Embassy in Baghdad with a number of silencers
and explosives in the beginning of January. The silencers had the smell of
gunpowder according to the source whose name the newspaper refrained from
mentioning. The security of Baghdad airport held the Czech security team for a
number of hours; yet they were released following the intervention of the Czech
Ambassador who had visited Iraqi Transport Minister Hady Al-Amery's office,
according to the same source. The source told the newspaper that the security
officers at Baghdad airport found it very strange such silencer guns were in the
possession of foreign diplomats since these weapons are used by 'special
elements' for specific acts, which are assassinations. Why were they released so
quickly? Here's one clue: It is well known that Al-Amery is the head of the Badr
Brigades, the armed wing of the Supreme Council of Iraqi Islamic Revolution. The
Badr Brigades have changed their name into the Badr Organisation and joined the
so-called "political process."
Gov. of Baghdad Said Salah
Abdul-Razzaq said in an interview in Al sumaria News: "A unit of the security
forces near my house ordered a grey BMW to stop. In the car were four Americans,
two men and two women, in the possession of handguns with silencers and machine
guns and they wore bullet proof vests." Salah Abdul-Razzaq said that the four
Americans were driving near his house and urged the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign
Affairs to take diplomatic action and ask the US to clarify the reason for this
"violation," and warned of the possibility that his police forces would fire to
kill in the event of repeated violations, regardless of the nationality of the
offenders. They were released soon after the American Embassy intervened.
We conclude from all these events
something that is being repeated over and over again by many Iraqi witnesses,
namely that the recent strings of bomb attacks and assassinations are part of
the counterinsurgency strategies of the US in conjunction with Maliki's
government and probably Iran and other neighboring countries, false flag
operations in order to create chaos and sectarian strife with the ultimate goal
of discrediting national reconciliation efforts so that the country can be
partitioned without too much popular protest and political opposition.
There is a continuous flow of
disinformation and one must be willing to dig deeper into the secret, dark
underworld of dirty war, media manipulation and corruption to learn the truth.
The terrible humanitarian situation in Iraq is the ultimate responsibility of
the Anglo-American forces that invaded, occupied and keep occupying Iraq,
together with the US-installed Iraqi government. And they should be held
accountable.
Those are some very important points and ones that I'm more than willing to
consider. I like the BRussels Tribunal. But people who don't know it or may
not like it only have to start with those opening paragraphs to have a reason to
stop reading. 'Beating the system' is not the same as losing your life because
you were tortured into giving a 'confession.' The two can't be equated.
Last Thursday, as bombs swept Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament voted on the 2012
budget and to spend at least $50 million on the purchase of 350 armored vehicles
for themselves. It was controversial last Thursday and remains so. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) notes objections
are coming "from government officials to revered clerics to newspaper
editors." AFP reports the plan
was for "one armored car per MP and an additional 25 vehicles to be dispersed at
the discretion of parliament's speaker."
Al Sabaah adds that
Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi issued a memo noting that the vehicles
would belong to the Parliament and not be the MPs personal cars to keep when the
current legislature completes its session. As Sheikh (Dar
Addustour) weighs in with a column on public opinion and appearance,
how Iraqis are seeing that Parliament will take steps -- and spend money -- to
protect themselves. Al Mada notes that
supposedly the vehicles being purchased are basically good for two years and
then require repurchasing and that the issue will be dealt with . . . after the
Arab Summit.
Back to the US, briefly. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared
before Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's House Committee on Foreign Affairs this
afternoon. It was one of two appearances before Congress today to argue for
State Dept funding for Fiscal Year 2013. I didn't catch her morning appearance
(I was at the veterans hearing). Clinton told the Committee that the US effort
was now civilian-led in Iraq. She stated that in 2011, the US government
budgeted $48 billion for Iraq. What the State Dept needed, she explained, was
"only one-tenth of" that number, that the State Dept was asking for "$40 billion
less than" what the US government wanted "just two years ago." The Defense Dept
had over 50,000 troops in Iraq and the administration keeps swearing that the
Iraq War is over. If someone tells me the meal's over, I ask for the check and
I pay it. If they come up to me with another check, swearing it's a
civilian-led check, my point would be, "Is the meal over or not?" Billions are
billions. The State Dept wants $8 billion. The State Dept that refused to
properly explain their budget to the Special Inspector General for
Reconstruction in Iraq. Even after he took the issue to Congress (repeatedly)
in 2011.
Camp Ashraf. She was before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, so Camp
Ashraf was going to come up. She spoke of the recent move of approximately 400
Iranian dissidents from Camp Ashraf. The dissidents were allowed in decades ago
under Saddam Hussein; after the US invasion in 2003, the US government entered
into talks and negotiations with them which resulted in their becoming
"protected persons" under international law and the Geneva Conventions. Nouri
al-Maliki is close to Iran and Iran doesn't want the residents in Iraq. Nouri
and others have had to be restrained by the United Nations repeatedly on this
issue. Hillary stated of the move this month of 400 Iranian dissidents from
Camp Ashraf to the former US Camp Liberty, "There were complications but it was
peaceful."
That's really not true. They suffered through an invasive search -- body
search -- before they left Camp Ashraf. Despite that search, they were
then forcibly searched before being allowed in Camp Liberty. What should have
taken no more than three hours, took over ten. It was not peaceful for the
residents. If "peaceful" means "no shots were fired," then it was "peaceful."
If peaceful means what the rest of the world understands it as, no, it wasn't
peaceful.
The US government (during Bill Clinton's presidency) put the residents on
the terrorists watch list. Being on that list is a problem. Hillary denied
that to be the case. She stated that it wasn't preventing anyone from taking
the residents any -- any country. That's not true. She further rejected the
assertion that being on the US terrorist list allowed Iraqis to treat the
residents poorly and justify it. That's just an outright untruth. Either she's
not following the region or she wasn't telling the truth. There is not a month
that goes by when Nouri or one of his underlings doesn't tell Press TV or some
other Iranian outlet that the US has the group on the terrorist list and so
they're terrorist and Iraq cannot house terrorists (unless of course they have
the title of Iraqi Prime Minister).
What she should have faced was an intense grilling as to why the State Dept
hasn't moved on this issue as they were ordered by the US courts to review the
status in 2010 (the court faulted the decision and felt it had deprived the
group of due process)? She was Secretarty of State when the court ruled. She is
still Secretary of State. She should have conducted the review long ago and an
announcement about the status should have been made. It is depressing to see
Hillary Clinton's behavior on this issue. Is the State Dept allowed to ignore
the US courts? Is the State Dept now above the judicial branch? Is there no
check on the State Dept?
Hillary told the Committee that the dissidents "successful and peaceful
closure of Camp Ashraf" and relocation to Camp Liberty would be "a key factor"
on the status.
No.
That's not what the court instructed. Is the State Dept bound by the law
or not?
I like Hillary but were I Hillary and had I Hillary's reputation, I
wouldn't want to be doing this. If it's not clear, right now she's one of the
most admired women in the country. If she keeps this up and there's a push
back, we're back to the days when Bill was in his first term and Hillary
wouldn't turn over healthcare information and some might even want to go to the
Whitewater well again. It's not smart for her, it's not smart for the image of
the department.
The move did not factor into the court's decision. What factored in was
the refusal of the Clinton administration to guarantee due process when they
pinned "terrorist" on the dissidents.
So legally, her reasoning is not sound. Now let's get to another issue
quickly. Unarmed dissidents are being moved by Nouri's thugs who -- as Amnesty
International and others have documented -- have twice produced multiple deaths
in their attacks on the dissidents. To now say that how these dissidents behave
as they're forcibly relocated will determine something is nonsense and blatantly
offensive.
It's offensive to everyone aware of forcible rel-locations in history. Be
it the Armenians, the Jewish people, you name it, those who are forced to
relocate -- at gunpoint no less -- do not have the power and it is offensive to
suggest that they do.
It is also highly illogical to claim that you will determine whether or not
a group of people are terrorists and we're out of space.
| 
