Impeachment?

Dave Lindorff is calling for Barack's impeachment:

If the Constitution is to have any relevance, and if America is to remain a free society, then there is really no alternative: there must be a bill of impeachment drawn up and submitted in the House, and there must at least be a hearing on that bill in the House Judiciary Committee.
The disclosure, by NBC, of a so-called “white paper” by the White House offering the legal justification for the executing of American citizens solely on the authority of the executive branch and the president exposes a White House so blatantly in violation of the Constitution that it simply demands such a hearing.

Barack does need to be impeached. 

It's too bad that we on the left lost Dave Lindorff.  He was worth listening to once upon a time.

Then he started saying things like progressives have to support Barack because he did drugs as a Black man.  I'm not joking, that is a quote.

He appears to have wised up some.  I hope so.  I don't think he could get any worse.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Thursday, February 7, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's son is implicated in corruption, protesters gear up for tomorrow, John Brennan and Dianne Feinstein embarrass themselves in the Senate today, and more.

Starting with War Criminal Colin Powell who, ten years ago, appeared before the United Nations (February 5, 2003) to 'make the case' for war on Iraq by lying.  Lawrence Wilkerson worked under Colin Powell and has spent the last 8 or so years attempting to rewrite history.  Yesterday, Norman Solomon appeared on Democracy Now! to debate Wilkerson. Kim Petersen (Dissident Voice) evaluates the claims put forward in the debate:

Wilkerson was evasive: “I don’t want to get into an on-screen argument with someone who makes comments as if he’d never been in government a day in his life or never been in—associated with power at this level.”
He looked for exculpation: “… when you look at the American people, who in polls showed 70 percent-plus agreed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, it’s not enough to say that Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and others failed in their responsibility to the American people or to their own government. There were a lot of people…”
Wilkerson, perhaps realizing the inference of his words, continued: “I’m not trying … to rationalize or excuse. I’m just saying that there were a lot of people who had the same view that Colin Powell basically presented at the United Nations.”
Many people were wrong. However, what was the point of Wilkerson stating that 70% of the American people believed the propaganda emanating from their government and the reporting of the corporate media? One obvious conclusion is that government administrations are not to be trusted and neither is the corporate media. A second conclusion is that 30% of the people outside the Bush administration loop were better clued in than the administration officials themselves, so it would be prudent to consider objectively all views, especially on life-and-death decisions as waging war.

Attending the Senate Intelligence Committee today was an odyssey into the absurd.  Senator Dianne Feinstein, you may remember, condemned the classic film Zero Dark Thirty.  While some idiots rushed to echo her, we pointed out that of course the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee would condemn it -- Zero Dark Thirty is an indictment against Feinstein who has served on the Intelligence Committee and looked the other way on torture over and over.  Feinstein was having a hissy fit as a man shouted something to the effect of, "You are betraying democracy when you assassinate justice!"  She also whined about how, she did not feel, there were enough capitol police.  She actually had it cleared twice.  Medea Benjamin (of CODEPINK) yelled, "Why, Dianne, why?" as the room was being cleared.


The shouters were CODEPINKers -- not all CODEPINKers were shouting, however.  Not shouting but in that section was Ann Wright.  Some of the people around her had painted their hands pink, some held up signs -- and I would say they wree the size of construction paper, not big signs, 8 1/2 by 11 inches.  There was one large sign calling Brennan a national security risk.  DiFi had a fit about those as well insisting there would be no signs allowed in the hearing either.  After wasting everyone's time clearing the room twice -- and scowling (sadly, her face has frozen like that), DiFi wanted to then lecture everyone present. 

She wanted those present to know what good citizens didn't do.  "They don't show signs."  What a bully in a bad wig.  And as she lost it repeatedly, it was hard not to think how lucky she is that so many of the Committee's hearings are closed to the public.  Feinstein is the public servant who  loathes the public. 

Why were people upset?  Because President Barack Obama nominated John Brennan to be the CIA Director. 


And probably because they knew Feinstein was going to rubber stamp him. What else was she going to do?  She served on the "Intelligence Committee" when torture took place.  She was briefed on it and she looked the other way.  She buried it and she mitigated it and she's part of the refusal to hold people accountable for torture.  In a functioning government, she would have been forced to resign from the Committee.  Instead, she tries to pretend she has the ethics to criticize a film that exposes the widespread use of torture.

In her ridiculous opening remarks, she pushed the lie that civilian deaths from drone strikes were minimal ("typically been in the single digits") and claimed that she and the Committee had provided strong oversight ("significant oversight") of The Drone War.  She was lying again.  When Feinstein lies, her voice goes flat and in the roof of the mouth.  It's a weird sound but that's her tell.  And she was lying in her opening statements.  Those that don't know her tell had only to listen to Senator Ron Wyden's first exchange to grasp that there has been no oversight and DiFi was lying.

If you're new to The Drone War, The World (PRI) has created this folder of audio reports on the topic.  Drones are robot planes.  The operator isn't in the plane, they're elsewhere.  The drones capture video.  That's generally a live feed.  When we speak of the drones involved in The Drone War, we're speaking of drones with more than video capability.  These drones are weaponized.  John Brennan is usually referred to by the press as the "architect."

DiFI and others would claim that they wanted to focus on CIA issues.  But no one asked the obvious: Can you keep it in your pants or will you also sleep around making yourself a security risk?  That is why the hearing was held in the first place.  CIA Director David Petraeus had to step down because he couldn't keep it in his pants.  When that happens, maybe the first question to the next nominee should be about the topic that forced a resignation?

Brennan noted he joined the CIA in 1980.  That was about all the facts he could muster in his opening remarks but that was probably one more factual truth than Chair Dianne Feinstein managed in her long, long opening remarks.  Brennan was yammering away about his family -- no, that really didn't belong in the opening remarks, when a man began shouting about a teenager (I believe he was referring to 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki who was an American and who was killed by a drone) when DiFi felt the need to pause the hearing.  As the man was led away, he urged the Committe,  "Stand up against torture, stand up against drones to not confirm this man."

Brennan then wanted to go on about his own three children.  A woman stood, held a baby doll over her head and shouted, "Speaking of children, I speak for the mothers of children who are killed in the drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and anywhere else. And the Obama administration refuses to tell Congress.  They won't even tell Congress what countries we are killing children in.  Senator Feinstein, are your children more important than the children of Pakistan and Yemen?  Are they more important?  Do your job!  World peace depends on it.  We're making more enemies -- "

DiFi's not really good with children, never has been.  And she only has one child, for the record.  That's probably confusing because she's on husband number three, but she only has one child.  (And that's obvious by her inability to handle anything that strays from a schedule.) 

"The next time," Feinstein informed Brennan, "we're going to clear the chamber and bring people in one by one."

What a petty little tyrant.  I've been at hearings at the height of the Iraq War.  I've seen real outbursts, prolonged ones.  No one had to call a recess, no one had to pout.  (In fairness, DiFi's unhappy life has made the corners of her mouth sag so she forever appears to be pouting.)   A woman then stood up with a list of the names of children killed in The Drone War.

It was too much for Dianne Feinstein.  She insisted that the room be cleared and "that the CODEPINK associates not be permitted to come back in."



After a recess, the hearing started again and it wasn't good for Brennan.  Without CODEPINK interrupting, it became obvious how like Arvin Sloane he was.  He sounds like him, he looks like him.  Arvin Sloane was the maniac and CIA baddie on Jennifer Garner's Alias.  Ron Rifkin played him.

Despite yammering away forever, neither Feinstein nor Breenan noted the reality that Alice K. Ross, Chris Woods and Sarah Leo did in December with "The Reaper Presidency: Obama's 300th drone strike in Pakistan" (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism).  None wanted to note that, in Pakistan alone, The Drone War has resulted in about 3,468 deaths -- with as many as 893 of those being civilians.  176 of those were children.  So, no, DiFi's lie about each year's civilian killed are not in the single digit.  Well they may be, the 'report' the Senate Intelligence Community gets may say that.  But it's a lie if it does.  DiFi also 'forgot' to mention that the United Nations


Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss:  As Deputy Executive Director, you received the daily updates from the time of Abu Zubaydah's capture throughout his interrogation including the analysis of the lawfulness of the techniques putting you in the position to express any concerns you had about the program before any of the most controversial techniques -- including water boarding -- were ever used.  Now we found a minimum of 50 memos in the documents within the 6,000 pages that -- on which you were copied.  What steps did you take to stop CIA from moving to these techniques you now say you found objectionable at the time?

John Brennan:  I did not take steps to stop the CIA's use of those techniques.  I was not in the chain of command of that program.  I served as Deputy Executive Director at the time.  I had responsibility for overseeing the management of the Agency and all of its various functions and, uh, I was aware of the program.  Uhm, I was uh-uh cc-ed on some of those documents but I had no oversight of it.  I wasn't involved in its creation.  I had expressed my personal objections and views to some Agency colleagues about certain of those EITs such as water boarding, nudity and others where I professed my personal objections to it.  Uh, but I did not try to stop it because it was -- uh -- you know, something that was being done in a different part of the agency under the authority of others.  Uh, and it was, uh, something that, uh, was directed by the, uh, the administration at the time.

So Brennan gave his silent approval.  And he never took it to "the ones directly above you," as Chambliss pointed out by listing all those higher at the time than Brennan in the CIA.  Confronted by Chambliss with AB Krongard's remarks that Brennan was more involved in the torture than he's letting on, Brennan fell back on "I don't recall."  Buzzy Krongard was Executive Director of the CIA.  Asked by Chambliss about the e-mails describing various torture techniques being sent to him, Brennan insisted he got ton of e-mails but he wasn't in the loop on torture.


Senator Ron Wyden started his first round of questioning by noting the meeting he and other senators had with Brennan last week.

Senator Ron Wyden:  As we discussed then, I believe the issues before us have nothing to do with political party and have everything to do with checks and balances that make our system of government so special.  Taking the fight to al Qaeda is something every member of this Committee feels strongly about.  It's the idea of giving any president unfettered power to kill an American without checks and balances that is so troubling.   Every American has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them.  And ensuring that the Congress has the documents and information it needs to conduct robust oversight is central to our democracy.  In fact, the Committee was actually created in response to lax oversight of programs that involved targeted killings.   So it was encouraging last night when the President called and indicated that effective immediately, he would release the documents necessary for senators to understand the full legal analysis of the president's authority to conduct the targeted killing of an American.  What the president said is a good first step towards ensuring the openess and accountability that's important and you heard that reaffirmed in the Chair's strong words right now.  Since last night, however, I have become concerned that the Department of Justice is not following through with the president's commitment just yet.   11 United States Senators asked to see any and all legal opinions, but when I went to read the opinions this morning, it is not clear that that was what was provided.  And moreover on this point, with respect to lawyers, I think what the concern is, is there's a double standard.  As the National Security Advisor and you volunteered to your credit,  you are not a lawyer, you asked your lawyers and your experts to help you and we're trying to wade through all of these documents and the reason I'm concerned is that it's not yet clear that what the president committed to has actually been provided.  And finally on this point, the Committee has been just stonewalled on several other requests -- particularly with regards to secret law.  And I'm going to leave this point simply by saying, I hope you'll go back to the White House and convey to them the message is not yet following through on the president's commitment.  Will you convey that message?

John Brennan:  Yes, I will, Senator.

Senator Ron Wyden:  Very good.  Let me now move to the public side of oversight, making sure that the public's right to know is respected.   One part oversight is Congressional oversight and our doing our work here.  The other is making sure that the American people are brought into these debate.  Just like James Madison said, this is what you need to preserve a republic.  And I want to start with the drone issue.   In a speech last year, the President instructed you to be more open with the public about the use of drones to conduct targeted killings of al Qaeda members.  So my question is: What should be done next to ensure that public conversation about drones so that the American people are brought in to this debate and have a full understanding of what rules the government's going to observe when it conducts targeted killings?

John Brennan:  Well I think this hearing is one way because I think this kind of discourse between the legislative and the executive branch is critically important.  I believe that there needs to be continued speeches that are going to be given by, uh, given by the executive branch to explain our counter-terrorism programs.  I think there's a misimpression on the part of some American people who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorist for past transgressions.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there's no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat.  So we need to make sure that there's an understanding.  And the people that were standing up here today, I think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths.  And as the Chairman said earlier, the need to be able to go out and say that publicly and openly, I think, is critically important because people are reacting to a lot of falsehoods that are out there and I do see it as part of my obligation and I think it's the obligation of this Committee to make sure the truth is known to the American people and to the world.

It's a damn shame idiots like Glenn-Glenn Greenwald were allowed and encouraged to hijack Zero Dark Thirty because Kathryn Bigelow's film demonstrates what a liar Brennan is.  There is no mistaken impression (the real term, not "misimpression") on the part of the American people.  What's really going on, and this is in Kathryn's film, is that "last resort" is not a last resort.  These people making these decisions are declaring everything a "last resort."  That's what the interrogation in the first act of the film is about.  The prisoner has no knowledge of a bombing that will take place in 24 hours.  He is tortured.  Over and over.  "Last resort" and "threat"?  No, not in the 'ticking time bomb' sense that has taken up the bulk of the discussion of terrorism.

Should people torture?

No.  It cheapens and deadens you, it destroys any real sense of a legal system.  But proponents use the ticking time bomb argument.  This argues that if you could stop Miami from being bombed in 24 hours if you were allowed to torture a suspect, you should do it.  This ticking time bomb argument allowed for a lot of hiding.  The torture was never about something in 24 hours.  It was about getting information -- something interrogation has long done.  Sometimes well, sometimes poorly.  And as the film makes clear, torture was allowed because an attack today or an attack two years from now were all treated as an "immediate threat" and torture was the first choice while being presented as a "last resort."

Brennan grasps what idiots like Glenn-Glenn didn't.  And Brennan is playing word games with a Committee that's either too stupid to grasp that or honestly doesn't care.  And that's very important because if you're going to infer that Americans can't be targeted on US soil and Brennan's playing word games then we're being denied the reality that, as with torture, the never-ending supposed threat (labled "immediate threat" always by the government) will mean US citizens can be targeted with government killings while on US soil.  Anything else is lie and Brennan told a lot of lies in the hearing.  We're going to again note Jameel Jaffer's "The Justice Department White Paper Details Rationale for Targeted Killing of Americans" (ACLU):



Michael Isikoff at NBC News has obtained a Justice Department white paper that purports to explain when it would be lawful for the government to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen believed to be affiliated with a terrorist organization. Many of the white paper's arguments are familiar because Attorney General Eric Holder set them out in a speech at Northwestern University in March of last year. But the white paper offers more detail, and in doing so it manages to underscore both the recklessness of the government's central claim and the deficiencies in the government's defense of it.

The 16-page white paper (read it here) is said to summarize a 50-odd page legal memo written in 2010 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to justify the addition of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi to the government's "kill lists." That legal memo is one of the documents the ACLU is seeking in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Needless to say, the white paper is not a substitute for the legal memo. But it's a pretty remarkable document.

The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country. This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield. The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated.



Moving from the hearing, Salah Nasrawi (Ahram) explores the current trends in Iraq:


The protests raised speculation about the future of the violence-torn nation amid the worst political deadlock and sectarian divisions seen since the US troops departed.
The seven-week demonstrations seem to be a sign of regained Sunni confidence in the face of Shia domination since the US-led invasion that toppled the Sunni regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Iraq has remained gripped in its worst political crisis as the leaders of its divided sectarian and ethnic communities have failed to reach agreement on how to share power and government revenues.
The country’s Sunni and Kurdish leaders have accused Al-Maliki of violating the terms of a power-sharing deal he signed with rival political parties following inconclusive parliamentary elections in 2010.
As the political crisis in Iraq deepens, Baghdad has been embroiled in a long-running dispute over political participation, oil and land and revenue-sharing with the Kurds in the north.
Tensions between the central Iraqi government in Baghdad and the Kurdish region intensified following reports of a military stand-off between Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers and the Iraqi army.





Iraq Body Count notes 80 violent deaths so far this month through yesterday which was only the sixth day of the month.   Violence continues today.  All Iraq News reports a Mosul roadside bombing has claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers, three homes in nothern Diyala Province were bombed leaving eighteen people injured, a Baghdad car bombing has injured an employee of Irbahim al-Jaafari's -- al-Jaafari is the head of the National Alliance and 1 government employee was shot dead in Baghdad.  Al Rafidayn identifies the government employee as the Director General of the Ministry of Housing and Construction and  Al Rafidayn identifies the location on the home bombings as Wajihiya ("north of Baquba").

On the topic of violence, Nouri's flunky Muqdad al-Sharifi was insisting to AFP yesterday that the protests were a security threat.  Today the gabby al-Sharifi is telling AP and anyone else who will listen (or anyone who'll practice stenography)  that the electoral commission are receiving death threats from Sunni areas.  Code for "Sunnis be crazy."  It's good to see that al-Sharifi's not interested in even pretending to be objective.  Better the reality of Nouri and his flunkies be exposed early on.  Interestingly enough, he's now just "a member of the election commission" -- that's how AP bills him today.  (He is actually, as AFP noted, "the chief electoral officer of Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission.")  While Nouri and his cronies try to dismiss and attack the protesters, All Iraq News notes Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, has issued a call for the legitimate demands of the protesters to be heeded.  The outlet notes that al-Hakim has been in contact with some of the southern tribal leaders and they are calling for the protesters to be listened to.  Al Rafidayn notes that al-Hakim declared that the protests are a Constitutional right and that the government must listen to the legimate demands.  Meanwhile Kitabat reports that protesters are being targeted for assassination and that in Baghdad alone 13 protests have been assassinate.

Al Mada notes the sit-in in Mousl continues and that belongings of the protesters were stolen from their tents.  Sheikh Saeed Lafi states that Friday's demonstration will rally the people and see tribal leaders and elders taking part in the demonstration and calling for the Federal Court to honor the mandates passed by Parliament (limiting the Speaker of Parliament and Prime Minister to two terms only -- as the president is already limited).  The Sheikh notes that the Federal Court is biased towards Nouri and under the control of Nouri's Dawa political party.  He also states that it is clear that Iran is influecing events in Iraq.  Kitabat adds that Friday's slogan is "NO to the Tyrannical Ruler."  The protesters state that Iraq is headed towards the abyss and they will not assist in the making of a new dictator or in helping the dicator exploit the people.


 Like the protests, questions surrounding a billion dollar deal just won't go away.  From the December 26th snapshot:

October 9th, Nouri was strutting across the world stage as he inked a $4.2 billion weapons deal with Russia. The deal is now iffy if not off (an Iraqi delegation went to Russia  at the start of the month to see if the deal could be salvaged) and it went down in charges of corruption. Among those said to be implicated in the corruption is Nouri's own son. All Iraq News reports that State of Law is attempting to remove Nouri's name from the list of those Parliament is investigating for the corruption in that deal.  In addition, Al Mada reports that Nouri is refusing to answer questions from the Parliament relating to that arms deal.

You may remember that when the rumors started to really swirl, Nouri and his cronies turned on Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri's spokesperson.  Thing is, they turned to late.  Ali al-Dabbagh had already seen the writing on the wall and left Iraq.  Not before making it clear that he knew a great deal about the Russian arms deal -- and repeatedly maintaining that he hadn't made a cent off it.  He's currently in the UAE.  All Iraq News reports today that Ali's gotten chatty with the Russian press. Who made money off the corrupt deal?  Ali says it was Nouri's advisors and Nouri's son.



Cindy Sheehan is calling on people to write political prisoner Lynne Stewart.  Lynne Stewart early on in her career became the people's attorney.  That means her clients were often not the ones who could afford to pay for legal representation.  It means also that she represented all of the people.  Not just the cuddly types.  This became a problem during the so-called War on Terror -- a never-ending war.  You can't have a Lynne Stewart out there.  Not someone who stands up.  You need cowards.  And they're always in wide supply.  In 2005, Lynne Stewart was found guilty.  Elaine Cassel (Find Law) explained what was taking place:

Prior to September 11, 2001, many attorneys might have sided with Stewart. They would certainly have seen a blatant Sixth Amendment violation in both the SAMs and the eavesdropping regulations - and possibly seen First Amendment violations when it came to the SAMs. And they might also have agreed that to honor the right to counsel, an attorney ought to try to resurrect the traditional attorney-client relationship despite these unconstitutional constraints.
Now, however, the First and Sixth Amendments have been gutted--at least in terms of the attorney-client relationship. Indeed, as I argued in the first article I wrote about Stewart, the government seems to be conducting an all-out assault on the right to counsel.
Defense attorneys who represent alleged terrorists - or even detainees who are merely suspected of some connection to terrorism -- now know that the government may listen in on their attorney-client communications. They also know that this eavesdropping may give rise to evidence that may be used in their own prosecution for terrorism if they cross the imaginary line drawn by the government.
How can these attorneys be zealous advocates with this government-inspired fear overshadowing their every word?
If the attorneys are prosecuted, they can expect, at trial, to be conflated with their clients - just as Stewart was. The prosecution showed an old tape of Osama bin Laden promising revenge if Rahman were not released. In a courtroom only a short distance from Ground Zero, the tape must have meant a great deal. But it related to Rahman, not Stewart. Though Rahman may be a Bin Laden confederate, that does not mean his attorney is.

Lynne is guilty of nothing.  She broke no law. She broke a Special Administrative Measure.  That's not a law.  She broke it by giving Reuters a press release from her client.  That happened when Bill Clinton was president.  Janet Reno was Attorney General.  The Justice Dept looked into the matter.  They didn't file charges against Lynne because Janet Reno knew the law and knew breaking a SAM is not breaking a law.  Life went on.  Then the Supreme Court gave the presidency to Bully Boy Bush and he picked John Ashcroft to be his Attorney General.  Ashcroft went gunning for Lynne and he should have been reigned in by judges.  Instead, he was allowed to let his crazy run free. 

Falsely linking Lynne to 9-11 and holding the trial at Ground Zero allowed Ashcroft to get a conviction -- he linked her to 9-11 the same way the administration linked Iraq to 9-11 when trying to sell the Iraq War.   In October of 2006, US District Court Judge John Koetl sentenced Lynne to 28 months.  He noted, in his remarks, her years of work, her public service.  Lynne began serving her sentence on November 18, 2009.  The delay had to do with medical care for breast cancer.  Bully Boy Bush was gone from the White House.  Barack Obama was President of the United States.  A Constitutional professor, he claimed.  Surely, this would be good for Lynne.  Maybe, as our Elaine's noted, Lynne reminded Barack too much of his own mother?  Whatever the reason, Barack becoming president wasn't good for Lynne.  Under Barack, Lynne's 28 month sentence was replaced with a 10 year prison sentence. 

 As Lynne's husband Ralph Poynter noted on Black Agenda Radio, week of January 21st, Lynne's cancer has returned.



Ralph Poynter:  For months, we have been worried about a spot that's shown on Lynne's lung -- one of her lungs.  And we did not want to go public with it until we were sure what was happening.  What is happening is her breast cancer is spreading.  It has spread to the other lung and to parts of her back.  We feel that it is a death sentence in the prison.  We fought in the beginning to keep Lynne out of jail, to make them take her from a local hospital with the doctor's objection because we could see the hand writing on the wall.  This was not taken up as a legal issue and Lynne went to prison and now the other shoe has fallen.  Her cancer is spreading.  She is in Fort Worth, Texas subjected to the regulations of a prison between her and health care.  From the greatest center of health care probably in the world from New York to Fort Worth, Texas and we know cancer is spreading.  And as our daughter the doctor says, cancer has to be nipped in the bud.  But first it has to go through regulations of Fort Worth Texas -- not knowing when you go to the hospital, not knowing who's going to be there.  So we're working on that.

Lynne's now served over 38 months in prison.  Her original sentence was 28 months.  Stephen Lendman (San Franciso Bay View) explains, "She requested transfer to a New York hospital. She's been successfully treated there before.  She was denied."  Brenda Ryan (Workers World) reports, "The re-emergence of Stewart's cancer was first detected in a PET scan.  [Lynn and Ralph's daughter Dr. Zenobia] Brown noted that it took two months from the time of the scan until Stewart was able to see a doctor.  Stewart's hands and feet are shackled every time she goes to the hospital.  While there she is cruelly shackled to a bedpost by her ankle and wrist."  This is ridiculous.  She's served the original sentence.  She's now dealing with cancer again.  She needs to focus on her treatment.  She cannot do that behind bars.  She is a 73-year-old woman who has never been a threat to herself or others, she needs a medical release right now.  The US Justice Dept allows what is known as a "compassionate release" and it includes criteria such as "extraordinary or compelling circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the court at the time of sentencing."  That would include the return of Lynne's cancer.  There is no risk to the public in Lynne being released under a "compassionate release."  It is in Lynne's best interest for her to be released, it is in the government's best interest to release her.  On the latter, as University of California San Francisco's Dr. Brie Williams pointed out, "Current compassionate release guidelines are failing to identify seriously ill prisoners who no longer pose a threat to society, placing huge financial burdens on state budgets and contributing to the national crisis of prison overcrowding."









iraq
norman solomon
codepink
medea benjamin
al mada
all iraq news
al rafidayn
kitabat

Where is Happy Endings?

You know what I'd like to be able to do?

Watch a damn TV show.

I don't think that's asking too much.  Maybe I'm wrong.

SO I had planned to blog about "Happy Endings."  That's an ABC sitcom that my three kids and I can all watch and laugh at.  Some of the jokes are over my daughter's head (she's the youngest).  That's fine.  I object to violence, not sex. 

It's got three strong female characters.  It's got Damon Wayans Jr.  As an African-American family, that is appreciated.  (And he is Dream Husband of all the sitcom characters currently on TV.)  It's got Max who is gay and that's also important to me.  My children are not homophobes.  (Their uncle is gay.)  It's a really funny show.

But it airs and then it doesn't.

It didn't last night.  It will be back February 19th.

They have doubled up on the episodes.  They have aired them on Sundays.  At what point will they leave the show alone and just air it a regular time?

I'm so tired of this.  It's as if ABC wants to kill off the show.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

Wednesday, February 6, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, another suicide bombing in Iraq, the UN calls for an end to female genital mutilation, Iraqiya returns to the Cabinet meetings, DoD and VA fail to meet their assigned tasks, and more.

Starting with Cindy Sheehan who notes political prisoner Lynne Stewart explaining that her cancer has returned.  We'll note Lynne in the snapshot tomorrow -- today, we've got Congress, DoD, VA, Toby Dodge, and more already.   You can refer to Third's "Lynne Stewart's cancer has returned, release her" for now.

Turning to War Criminal Colin Powell who, ten years ago, appeared before the United Nations (February 5, 2003) to 'make the case' for war on Iraq by lying.  Lawrence Wilkerson may never be able to become the second Mrs. Colin Powell, but Wilkerson can and does 'stand by your man' right now.  And sadly, a lot of people assist Wilkerson in whitewashing Colin Powell -- but the blood never fades, all that blood of the innocents on Colin Powell's hands.  Today Norman Solomon appeared on Democracy Now! to debate Wilkerson .  Excerpt.



NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, we just heard Colonel Wilkerson say that "we were all wrong." I’m quoting him here from a few minutes ago. In fact, we were not all wrong. As a matter of fact, many experts and activists and researchers, from the get-go, in 2002, were saying that the administration case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was full of holes, and many guests on Democracy Now! demolished those claims from the Bush administration in real time. The organization where I work, the Institute for Public Accuracy, put out many news releases documenting the falsities coming from Colin Powell’s office and the entire administration, including the week that he gave his now-infamous speech at the United Nations. We had U.N. weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck demolishing many of those claims being made, again, in real time.
So, what we’ve heard again today -- and I think it’s very disappointing -- from the former chief of staff here of Colin Powell is the reiteration of these supposedly exculpatory, actually, excuses for just following orders. And I could condense what Colonel Wilkerson just said about Colin Powell’s role in the lead up to the war in Iraq: "We were just following orders, and Dick Cheney made us do it." No, Dick Cheney didn't make you do it. There's something called resignation. There’s something called speaking up and the First Amendment. There are a lot of dead Americans and many more Iraqis because of the silence and the following of orders when we look at what actually took place.
Now, one of the most important facts is that, 10 years later, an ongoing legacy of Colin Powell’s behavior -- and, unfortunately, of our guest, as well, and the entire upper echelons of the Bush administration -- is a pattern of impunity -- impunity to lie, impunity to deceive and distort, impunity that is personal, that is professional and is governmental. And that kind of impunity, which has caused so much death and misery in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, is being fast-forwarded, is prefigurative for where we are now. And so, even today, although what’s done is done, we might say, the failure of people like Colin Powell to step up and say, "Look, not only was I wrong, but in planning and implementing aggressive war, I violated the Nuremberg Principles" -- if we could get those kind of forthright statements from these former top officials, we could look at the agenda building for war on Iran in a more understanding light.


Very well said by Norman Solomon who is asking people to go to this Roots Action page and let your senators know your concern over the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA Director.  Also calling out Brennan and Powell is David Swanson who has come up with The Colin Powell Memorial B.S. Award.


Today the United Nations issued a press release on the topic of female genital mutilation:

Fewer girls are subjected to the life-threatening practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) according to new data from the United Nations, released on 6 February, the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. The data show that FGM/C is becoming less prevalent overall and the younger generation is less vulnerable to the practice.
In the 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East, where the practice of FGM/C is concentrated, on average, 36 per cent of girls aged 15-19 have been cut compared to an estimated 53 per cent of women aged 45-49. The decline is particularly sharp in some countries: in Kenya, for example, women aged 45-49 are three times more likely to have been cut than girls aged 15-19.
“This progress shows it is possible to end FGM/C” said UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake. “FGM/C is not only deeply wrong, we can and must end it to help millions of girls and women lead healthier lives.”
These recent estimates produced by UNICEF show that at least 120 million girls and women have experienced FGM/C in these 29 countries. Given present trends, as many as 30 million girls under the age of 15 may still be at risk. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C is currently making progress in preventing these girls and future generations from being exposed to FGM/C.
The new estimates follow the unanimous adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution in December 2012, calling on Member States to intensify efforts towards the complete elimination of FGM/C.
Since 2008, when the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C was established, nearly 10,000 communities in 15 countries, representing about 8 million people, have renounced the practice. Last year, a total of 1,775 communities across Africa publicly declared their commitment to end FGM/C.

All Iraq News reports the UN called on the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation and finds that 8% of Iraqi women ages 15 to 49 have had some form of FGM -- the bulk of the 8% reside in Erbil, Kirkuk and Sulaimaniya.



For the fourth day in a row, Iraq sees a suicide bombing. Bi Mingxin (Xinhua) reports a suicide car bombing at an Abu Ghraib military base resulting in the deaths of 5 soldiers with another nine injured.  Alsumaria notes that the attack took place at noon local time.   All Iraq News reports an attack on Mosul checkpoint left 2 police officers dead.  Alsumaria adds that the corpse of a 22-year-old female was found in Kirkuk -- signs of torture and gunshot wounds -- and that a Baghdad assasination attempt (by sticky bombing) on the Minister of the Enivornment's Sargon Lazar Salioh left his driver injured.  Press TV notes a Mussayib attack which left 3 police officers dead and three more injured. And Alsumaria is reporting that a Salahuddin Province bombing (outside of Tikrit) claimed the life of 1 military officer and left two soldiers injured (all three were part of the Tigris Operation Command) and they note 1 man shot dead in Mosul by unknown assailants.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 76 people killed this month by violence in Iraq.  76 in the first five days of the month alone.

As security is needed in Iraq, Alsumaria reports that Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons/Daughters Of Iraq") announced today that at least 80% of their weapons are out of date.  Kitabat reports that the Ministry of Justice announced yesterday that since December 21, 2010, 200 prisoners have died in Iraqi prisons.  Consider that another reason for the attempted prison breaks.

Tuesday saw a win for the Iraqi press.  Al Rafidayn reports that the despised 'cybercrime bill' has been dropped.  Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory issued a statement praising the Parliament and the Chair of the Committee on Culture and Information for abolishing the bill noting that it had met with harsh opposition since the bill became public -- many journalists -- in and out of Iraq -- condemned the bill and over 40 international organizations also came out against it.  Among the over 40 speaking out?  Human Rights Watch which noted last July:

The 16-page report, “Iraq’s Information Crimes Law: Badly Written Provisionsand Draconian Punishments Violate Due Processand Free Speech,” is a legal analysis of the draft law. It finds that the draft law is part of a broad effort by authorities to suppress peaceful dissent by criminalizing legitimate information sharing and networking activities. The proposed law had its first reading before Iraq’s Council of Representatives on July 27, 2011; a second reading is expected as early as July 2012.

“This bill would give Iraqi authorities yet another tool to suppress dissent, especially on the Internet, whichIraqi journalists and activists increasingly turn to for information and open debate,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Council of Representatives should reject lawsthat would undermine the freedoms enshrined in Iraq’s2005 constitution.”

Jillian C. York and Maira Sutton (Electronic Frontier Foundation) observe, "Fortunately, it looks as if this bill will not become law. A document released on January 22, 2013 and shared by Social Media Exchange (SMEX) shows that a request was made by the parliamentary Culture and Media Committee and approved by the Speaker of the House to revoke the egregious law."  Also dropped is a boycott.  All Iraq News reports that Iraqiya members in Nouri's Cabinet have returned to Cabinet hearings saying that they feel protesters are being listened to.  (They boycotted hearings last month saying the protesters were not being listened to.)  The paper notes Ayada Allawi declared that a replacement needed to be named for Nouri because Nouri is unable to manage the state's affairs.  There have been calls for early parliamentary elections.  Whether that happens or not, Iraq is supposed to hold provincial elections in April. 

When the Independent High Electoral Commission was truly independent, Nouri tried to take it over.  Unable to do so, he would imprison the Committee Chair and a Commissioner.  Why isn't that still happening with the new Committee Chair?  Because Muqdad al-Sharifi is in Nouri's pockect.    AFP reports: that Nouri's little puppet declared that "anti-governmnet rallies" are causing security issues which could harm the April provincial elections. 

The problem is the "anti-government rallies"?

The only people who have died at the rallies were 7 Iraqis who were demonstrating.  (False attempts to tie the deaths of 2 Iraqi soldiers to the protests failed some time ago.)  But 76 people died through yesterday from violence.  The protesters are exercising their democratic rights guaranteed to them by their country's Constitution.  One would assume someone in charge of elections would applaud that.


Toby Dodge is the author of the new book Iraq: From  War To A New Authoritarianism.   Dodge is a British political scientist and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  Last month he spoke about Iraq at the London School of Economics and Political Thought.  Excerpt.


Toby Dodge:   Now the national elections of March 2010 saw something quite remarkable, I think.  It saw a sustained challenge to that exclusive elite command.  Iraqiya  -- a coalition of political parties led by Ayad Allawi capitalizing on a rising nationalism in Iraq as violence decreased -- ran, I think, an incredibly effective grassroots campaign and mobilized enough folks to get 91 -- 91 seats compared to Maliki's 89.  However, that challenge to the exclusive elite pact created a counter-challenge by the politicians who'd benefited from the exclusive elite pact and what you saw from March to November was a period of extended and acrimonious negotiations.  In the end, I would argue, and there are probably people in the audience who disagree, that what happened was with the Erbil Agreement of November 2010, Iraqiya was brought back into another government of national unity on the basis of the exclusive elite pact.  Iraq's Islamic party had long failed to exist as meaningful electoral forces was pushed out, Iraqiya was brought in  -- "No, no, you can represent the Sunni population.  We'll give the Ministry of Finance -- a bit problematic at the moment -- we'll give you the vice president -- also problematic -- and that'll be enough."  Now think about the 2,849,000 people who voted for Iraqiya in March, they've seen the influence of their votes on the government systematically minimized ever since.  And their parliamentary representatives brought into government only to be persecuted and driven into exile in the case of [Vice President Tareq al-] Hashemi.   The continuation of this exclusive elite pact cannot but alienate increasing numbers of Iraq's population, exacerbating the already powerful, popular sentiment that the government is failing to deliver on their needs because of corruption.  So in 2013, ten years after the invasion, Iraq is a state whose prime minister is increasingly concentrating political and coercive power in his own hands.   He and the rest of the ruling elite are kept in power by a million man security force which is restricted by little or no democratic or parliamentary oversight.   In February 2011, the Arab Spring arrived in Iraq with mass public demonstrations breaking out, certainly in Baghdad but also in Basra and intriguingly up in the Kurdish Regional Government areas of north Iraq. These demonstrations -- these popular expressions of alienation and anger at the corrupt ruling elite were suppressed by extended violence.  This is the outcome of regime change a decade after invasion: An increasingly authoritarian government unable to deliver services to its population, increasingly reliant on an over-developed armed force.




Dropping back to yesterday afternoon, the US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing on the use of temporary disability ratings.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  Our hearing topic today will focus on temporary total disability ratings.  Temporary total disability ratings serve a very important function in the benefits scheme.  This type of rating is assigned when it is established by medical evidence that surgery or certain treatment was performed, necessitating a period of recovery during which the veteran cannot work. However, according to a January 2011 report by the VA Office of the Inspector General, VBA has not been correctly processing and monitoring such claims.  As a result, the OIG stated that since January 1993, VBA has overpaid veterans a net amount of $943 million.  The OIG also stated that without timely action, VBA would overpay veterans a projected $1.1 billion over the next five years.  These numbers are troubling, to say the least.  As all of us here today are aware, our nation’s fiscal health is one of this Congress’s top priorities.  Part of this process includes trimming government spending and eliminating government waste.  It is my hope that by bringing attention to this topic, we can ensure that every dollar appropriated to VA is being spent properly on care and benefits for our veterans.  We heard from VA in June of last year during sworn testimony, that these errors were due to a computer glitch.  VA advised that the glitch would be fixed by July 2012.  Nonetheless, two new Regional Office audits issued by the OIG last month found that 50 percent of the temporary 100 percent disability evaluations reviewed were incorrect. The explanations given in the OIG audits stated that the 50 percent accuracy rate occurred because staff did not establish controls to monitor the proposed reductions initially, nor did they schedule future medical examinations as required. So -- something doesn’t add up here.  If the computer glitch was fixed in July 2012 but over 50 percent of temporary total rating claims are still being processed incorrectly as of January 2013, then that leads me to believe that these are human errors, not computer errors.

100% Temporary Disability Rating?  "A total 100% temporary disability rating will be assigned, without regard to the rating schedule, when a service connected disability has required hospitalization treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, for a period in excess of 21 days."   Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake submitted a written statement for the record.  He noted that temporary disability ratings rarely affected members of his organization:

That being said, temporary total disability ratings serve an important and practical purpose for many veterans.  The determination for temporary total disability ratings are governed by the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.29, Ratings for service-connected disabilities requiring hospital treatment or observation, and 38 C.F.R. § 4.30, Convalescent ratings.  Temporary increases to VA disability ratings in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs 29 and 30 are simple adjustments to running compensation awards that can be accomplished by employees with a minimum of training.  Temporary increases to compensation Paragraph 29 are determined by the verified dates of hospitalization.  Meanwhile, adjustments under the provisions of Paragraph 30 are established by rating action based on available medical information.  In each case, the dates of entitlement are clearly indicated, and with only a small amount of attention to detail, there should be no significant errors.

Runyan continues as Subcommittee Chair.  The new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee is Dina Titus.  There were two panels.  The first panel was Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman and VA's Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations Linda Halliday (accompanied by Larry Reinkemeyer and Brent Arronte).  The second panel was the VA's Diane Rubens.  While the issue of overpayment causes alarm in the current fiscal climate, overpayment isn't the only problem.


Ranking Member Dina Titus:  As the Chair mentioned, and it bears repeating, a billion dollars is something to be worried about.  But this doesn't just go one way in terms of overpayments.  At the Reno VA Regional Office, which serves my Congressional district in southern Nevada, the Inspector General found that over half of the 100% disability evaluations were incorrectly processed.  And while a number of these involved overpayments, there were also some underpayments.  And we certainly don't want our veterans to be underpaid.  For example, we found one veteran with service connected bone cancer and prostate cancer who was underpaid nearly $10,000 over a period of three years. 


We'll note one one exchange from the hearing.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  Ms. Halliday, in your opinion, why is it the VBA failed to take adequate and timely measures to address the -- the systematic problems?

Linda Halliday:  Reliance that they needed an IT fix.  And that took some coordination between the VBA office and out office of OINT.  We kept telling them it is not just the IT fix.  What we were finding were people -- the VARO [Veterans Affairs Regional Office] staff were not making proper input to put these diaries in place.  Regardless of whether you had an IT fix in place, that action had to occur.  So it's been awhile that I don't believe VBA has been aggressive enough in addressing that -- that piece of it.  I know recently, Ms. Rubens had laid out some corrective action that included training which is consistently recommend in the benefits inspection reviews to try and reduce the human error associated with processing some of these claims.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  And -- and going back -- and you mentioned it in your testimony there about the targeted completion date which was moved several times -- to September 30, [20]11, to December 30, [20]11, to June 30, [20]12 and then to December 31st, [20]12.  Do you know if the December 31st, '12 deadline was ever met?  Or has it been pushed back even further?

Linda Halliday: We haven't tested for it, but the evidence would be right now the benefits inspection are still identifying substantial errors.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  And then finally, uhm, an alarming statistic in your written testimony says that only 53 regional offices have been inspected since your national audit -- have been fully followed by VBA policy and processing temporary disability claims evaluations.  Can you further elaborate on the extent that these problems are due to human error as opposed to the computer glitch?  And do you agree that -- with VBA's insistence that -- system glitches are the reason for these errors?

Linda Halliday:  Yeah, I'd like to ask Brent Arronte -- since he has spent so much time in our VA regional offices doing the inspections -- to filed that.

Brent Arronte:  What our inspections have-have shown is about 46% of the errors that we've seen with suspense date is what VBA is saying was the result of a systems glitch.  We never found a system's glitch.  To us a glitch means the system was not working as intended.  We spoke with some of the architecture behind this, I think in 2010, and they told us that the system was never developed to put these -- to ensure that these diary dates were populated into the system.  With that, we-we -- Two of the fixes that VBA has indicated that they have implemented, one in 2011 and one in 2012, we have not tested that yet.  We haven't obtained the data to see if those fixes are working systematically.  But what we have seen is about 25% of the errors are related purely to human error -- where staff is not putting in the -- or cancelling reminder notifications inadvertently, not understanding how to process reminder notifications and that results in the same effect of the benefit being paid when there's no evidence showing entitlement.
The Veterans Administration should be embarrassed that a hearing took place where the Inspector General explained that they refused to listen and that they repeatedly moved the date back.  The Secretary of the VA, Eric Shinseki, should be asked to explain how that happened?  He is supposed to be the head of the department, he is supposed to provide leadership.  This is just like, after the scandal of veterans not receiving their education checks, he mentions to Congress that he was informed of this impending problem right after he took over as Secretary of the VA.  He should have been called to the carpet for that but instead everyone apparently agreed to look the other way.  From the October 14, 2009 snapshot covering the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing that day:


Erick Shinseki: A plan was written, very quickly put together, uh, very short timelines, I'm looking at the certificates of eligibility uh being processed on 1 May and  enrollments 6 July, checks having to flow through August.  A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together the  plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen. Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in place.



But he didn't bother to let Congress know.  He didn't bother to warn the veterans who might be counting on those checks.  And this all got ignored.  Now we learn that the issue of 100% temporary disability pay has not been fixed and part of the reason for that failure is that they don't want to listen to the Inspector General's office.  Where is the accountability?

Halliday said at yesterday's hearing, "We had expected VBA to keep their commitment to work this national requirement and we just watched slippage upon slippage.  I think you have to ask the Department, VBA, why it took so long."  She might as well have been talking about the electronic record that VA and DoD were tasked with developing.  Mary Mosquera (Federal Computer Week) reported April 9, 2009:
Obama said it was time “to give our veterans a 21st-century VA," adding that there is no comprehensive system that enables a smooth transition of health care records between DOD and VA.
“That results in extraordinary hardship for an awful lot of veterans, who end up finding their records lost, unable to get their benefits processed in a timely fashion,” Obama said. Access to electronic records is essential to modern health care delivery and the paperless administration of benefits, he added.
“That’s why I’m asking both departments to work together to define and build a seamless system of integration with a simple goal: When a member of the armed forces separates from the military, he or she will no longer have to walk paperwork from a DOD duty station to a local VA health center; their electronic records will transition along with them and remain with them forever,” he said.

A seamless system of integration.  It would, Barack said, "give our veterans a 21st-century VA."  He wasn't pulling notions out of thin air.  In 2007, Commissioners Bob Dole and Donna Shalala were named to head The President's Commission On Care For America's Returning Wounded Warriors.  The commission came up with this idea and, in their final report, warned, "Meanwhile, congressional or departmental reform efforts should resist imposing new requirements that may result in duplicative or uncoordinated electronic systems and, instead, encourage the streamlining of today's systems and facilitate communication across them."

Does Shinseki think he can just blow off the tasks he's assigned?  Does he not get how this impacts veterans?  November 11, 2009, the VA's Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergrovernmental Affairs Tammy Duckworth appeared on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR).

Tammy Duckworth: Well what didn't work so well -- this is one of the first things I brought up to [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki when he interviewed me -- was the fact that we did not have a seamless transition of our military records from DoD to VA. When I left Walter Reed with my full medical records and I went to my VA hospital for the first time, I had to strip down to prove that I was an amputee. Even though he could see that I was an amputee and he had the medical records from the surgeon who amputated my legs. And we're immediately fixing that.  Back in May of this year, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates and Secretary Shinseki agreed to a program where we're going to develop virtual, lifetime, electronic records. So that from the day you raise your hand to enlist in the army to the day that you're laid to rest in one of our national shrines, your records follow you. And this will be a monumental change in how VA and DoD hand off and care for our veterans.


So in 2009, Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth told him in very concrete terms how this could effect a person transitioning from service member to veteran.  Did he not listen?  Duckworth is now a member of the US Congress, House Rep Tammy Duckworth.  I called out Shinseki this morning and Shirley and Martha advise e-mails felt I was giving Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta a pass because I know him.  I know Leon, I like Leon.  I've held him accountable when needed and haven't worried about 'tone.'  This isn't Leon's issue.  He's out the door, for one thing.  For another, he won't even have 18 months as Secretary of Defense (unless Chuck Hagel's nomination gets tanked).  If Hagel had been confirmed last week and had made the announcement Tuesday with Shinseki, I wouldn't have called out Hagel.  It's not Hagel's issue. 

Shinseki has been the consistent under Barack.  Dropping back to the July 25th snapshot to note that day's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing:

This morning, US House Rep Jeff Miller noted that "in 1961 John F. Kennedy said we'd put a man on the moon, eight years later, we were there.  We're talking about an integrated electronic health records by 2017.  Why could we put a man on the moon in eight years and we're not starting from ground zero on the electronic health record -- why is it taking so long?" He was asking that of the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki who were appearing before a joint-hearing of the House Armed Services and House Veterans Affairs Committee.  

Of course no real answer was given.  A grinning -- apparently amused -- Shinseki began his non-answer by declaring that "I can't account for the previous ten years."  Though he didn't say it, he also apparently couldn't account for the three years that he's been Secretary of the VA.  Three years and seven months.  You'd think Shinseki would be able to speak to the issue.  He couldn't.  He could offer that he met with Panetta four times this year with plans for a fifth meeting.  This was the same amount he met with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates but, apparently, in a few months less time.   I have no idea what that or his ridiculous grin was about. 

But I do think Shinseki may have inadvertently provided an answer for the delay when he went on to declare,  "It's taken us seventeen months to get to an agreement that both Secretary Panetta and I signed that describes the way forward."  There's the problem right there. 

Back in March 2011 what was Shinseki bragging about?  As Bob Brewin (Nextgov.com) reported, "Veteran Affairs Sectretary Eric Shinseki said Thursday he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed on March 17 that their departments would develop a common electronic health record system."  So that was agreed to in March 2011.  But it took Shinseki and and Gates 17 months to figure out how?  There's your time waster right there.  And it was not needed.  Shinseki and Panette did not need to 'invent' a damn thing.  This is not a new issue.  VA has long ago addressed what they need with regards to records and DoD has identified the same.  And after this had been done (and redone), Robert Dole and Donna Shalala served on the Dole -Shalala Commission coming up with many of the same things.  The Dole -Shalala Commission was established in 2007 and formally known as the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.   Appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee February 7, 2008, VA's Dr. James Peake testified that this electronic record was "a critical recommendation in the Dole-Shalala Commission report."

So he and Gates agreed what their departments needed to do in March 2011.  Then, in June 2011, Panetta becomes Secretary of Defense and Shinseki decides to start all over and spend 17 months coming to an agreement with Leon?  This falls on Shinseki.  He has not delivered on the task.  Yet again.

At what point is there accountability?  At yesterday's joint-press conference, Shinseki bragged that he and Panetta had just held the ninth meeting ("in 18 months") and they stressed the "commitment of both of our departments to a single, common, joint integrated electronic health record, the IEHR."  The ninth meeting, Shinskei explained "was about how to get there."  Really?  Panetta's got one foot out the door and you're meeting with him "about how to get there"?  Barack Obama tasked you with this duty back in April of 2009 and, in February of 2013, you're having a meeting "about how to get there"?

There's a lot of confusion as to what's going on.  Patricia Kime (Army Times) does a great job covering where things stand.  The same can't be said for others.  What's taking place is that the actual task is being tossed aside.  Instead, some low rent version of what was asked for is going to be assembled.   Let's quote Senator Patty Murray from yesterday's press release.

“I’m disappointed that the VA and the Pentagon are now backing away from a truly seamless medical records system. While this is a very complex problem, we must provide the best care for our servicemembers and veterans. That means the departments must meet this challenge by working together. What they are now proposing is not the fully integrated, end-to-end IT solution that this problem demands. VA and DOD have been at this for years and have sunk over $1 billion into making this the cornerstone of a nationwide electronic medical records initiative. I intend to follow-up with both Secretaries to find out why this decision was made.”


Senator Murray is the outgoing Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  She's right that, after wasting $1 billion in taxpayer dollars, they're now refusing to live up to what was promised.  

It's not going to be the full medical records -- as people were promised.  Instead, as the Defense Dept revealed through various flunkies on a press call yesterday, "information on prescriptions or information on lab results that will be exchanged on all patients, and most critically, in a standard data format at the point in 2014, so the data looks exactly the same between the two systems."  That is a huge come down from an electronic record that would carry all the patient information and follow the service member on over to the VA.  This was an expensive proposal.  But it was thought that veterans' health was worth it and it was thought that this would also help lower some health costs (both by being paperless and by being a complete record which would mean tests wouldn't be accidentally duplicated since you had a complete record). 

Leon Panetta said at yesterday's joint-press conference, "Achieving the goal has taken a tremendous amount of collaboration at all levels.  But I'm proud to say that our department are now working together more closely than ever before.  We recognized that bringing together two large bureaucracies, trying to make those bureaucracies work together to form a seamless support system for all service members and veterans is not an easy challenge.  It's tough."   You need Leon criticism?  Every word just quoted was ignorant and uninformed.  Your proud that the two departments are working more closely than before?  Well that's been the assigned task since 2007.  Two different administrations have called for that.  It's not "an easy challenge"?  You're right, Leon, it's not "an easy challenge."  Because a challenge would be Barack saying to you, "Let's all work harder on meeting the needs of our veterans and service members."  That's a goal, a challenge.  "You and VA create . . ."  That's an assignment. Both departments were tasked with that assignment back in 2009.  It's tough?  Well, it's an assignment.  It's a job assignment.  If you're not up to it, you're not up to the job (or you're saying that President Barack Obama was unrealistic when he handed out the assignment).  It's amazing how everyone shirks responsibility.  A task was assigned in 2009.  The task has not been achieved.  That means you failed.  In the real world, that means you get fired.  This lack of accountability is exactly why there will be little concern over government layoffs if sequestration takes effect.  The American people are tired of seeing nothing get accomplished over and over.  They wants scalps at this point.  It's a shame it will most likely be the scalps of the overworked civil service employees and not those in management who are supposed to be getting results (but repeatedly fail to do so).

The House Veterans Affairs Committee leadership and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee leadership issued a joint-press release today:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs today faulted the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs for backing off plans to create a single computer system to integrate electronic medical records for troops and veterans.
Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said: “I am deeply disappointed by the VA and Defense Department decision to back away from a commitment to develop and implement a truly integrated, single, electronic health record. President Obama charged the departments with creating a seamless system of integration so that service members transitioning from active duty to civilian life don’t have to worry about whether their health records will be lost or their claims delayed.  An integrated record would allow for a streamlined and timely claims process, faster decisions on benefits, less duplication in medical testing and more efficient, cost-effective treatment for both physical and mental health needs. Now more than ever we need greater cooperation between the departments to solve the serious challenges that continue to confront our service members and veterans.  I will continue to work to achieve better coordination by the departments and to ensure that the needs of veterans are met.”
House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) said: “The decision by DOD and VA to turn their backs on a truly integrated electronic health record system is deeply troubling. The need for a record system integrated across all DOD and VA components has been universally accepted for years, and until yesterday, both agencies have given us nothing but assurances they were working toward that goal. Previous attempts by DOD and VA to use disparate computer systems to produce universal electronic health records have failed, and unfortunately it appears they are repeating past mistakes. When DOD and VA take shortcuts, the veterans and service members under their care will be shortchanged.”      
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C), the ranking member of the Senate committee, said: “The fact that VA and DoD would reverse course on a plan they have been working towards for years that would create a coordinated electronic health record system between the two agencies is concerning and disappointing.  I am concerned about what this means for our nation’s service members and veterans, particularly those who will be transitioning from active duty service to civilian life in the near future.  We owe it to our nation’s defenders to do all we can to care for them and provide the most effective, efficient service we can, and coordination and communication between these two agencies is absolutely vital.” 
Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), ranking member of the House committee, said: “This is a huge setback and completely unacceptable. For years we have been told by both agencies that progress was made and that things were on track.  I’m disappointed that our nation’s two largest government agencies – one of which is the world’s foremost developer of high-tech machines and cyber-systems – could not come together on something that would have been so beneficial to those that served. We have just witnessed hundreds of millions of dollars go down the drain.”
Additional Contacts:
Michael Briggs (Sanders) 202 224-5141
David Ward (Burr) 202 228-2971
Ed Gilman (Michaud) 202 225-6306

 


iraq
norman solomon
cindy sheehan
xinhua
bi mingxin
all iraq news
alsumaria
kitabat

Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, February 6, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, another suicide bombing in Iraq, the UN calls for an end to female genital mutilation, Iraqiya returns to the Cabinet meetings, DoD and VA fail to meet their assigned tasks, and more.

Starting with Cindy Sheehan who notes political prisoner Lynne Stewart explaining that her cancer has returned.  We'll note Lynne in the snapshot tomorrow -- today, we've got Congress, DoD, VA, Toby Dodge, and more already.   You can refer to Third's "Lynne Stewart's cancer has returned, release her" for now.

Turning to War Criminal Colin Powell who, ten years ago, appeared before the United Nations (February 5, 2003) to 'make the case' for war on Iraq by lying.  Lawrence Wilkerson may never be able to become the second Mrs. Colin Powell, but Wilkerson can and does 'stand by your man' right now.  And sadly, a lot of people assist Wilkerson in whitewashing Colin Powell -- but the blood never fades, all that blood of the innocents on Colin Powell's hands.  Today Norman Solomon appeared on Democracy Now! to debate Wilkerson .  Excerpt.



NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, we just heard Colonel Wilkerson say that "we were all wrong." I’m quoting him here from a few minutes ago. In fact, we were not all wrong. As a matter of fact, many experts and activists and researchers, from the get-go, in 2002, were saying that the administration case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was full of holes, and many guests on Democracy Now! demolished those claims from the Bush administration in real time. The organization where I work, the Institute for Public Accuracy, put out many news releases documenting the falsities coming from Colin Powell’s office and the entire administration, including the week that he gave his now-infamous speech at the United Nations. We had U.N. weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck demolishing many of those claims being made, again, in real time.
So, what we’ve heard again today -- and I think it’s very disappointing -- from the former chief of staff here of Colin Powell is the reiteration of these supposedly exculpatory, actually, excuses for just following orders. And I could condense what Colonel Wilkerson just said about Colin Powell’s role in the lead up to the war in Iraq: "We were just following orders, and Dick Cheney made us do it." No, Dick Cheney didn't make you do it. There's something called resignation. There’s something called speaking up and the First Amendment. There are a lot of dead Americans and many more Iraqis because of the silence and the following of orders when we look at what actually took place.
Now, one of the most important facts is that, 10 years later, an ongoing legacy of Colin Powell’s behavior -- and, unfortunately, of our guest, as well, and the entire upper echelons of the Bush administration -- is a pattern of impunity -- impunity to lie, impunity to deceive and distort, impunity that is personal, that is professional and is governmental. And that kind of impunity, which has caused so much death and misery in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, is being fast-forwarded, is prefigurative for where we are now. And so, even today, although what’s done is done, we might say, the failure of people like Colin Powell to step up and say, "Look, not only was I wrong, but in planning and implementing aggressive war, I violated the Nuremberg Principles" -- if we could get those kind of forthright statements from these former top officials, we could look at the agenda building for war on Iran in a more understanding light.


Very well said by Norman Solomon who is asking people to go to this Roots Action page and let your senators know your concern over the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA Director.  Also calling out Brennan and Powell is David Swanson who has come up with The Colin Powell Memorial B.S. Award.


Today the United Nations issued a press release on the topic of female genital mutilation:

Fewer girls are subjected to the life-threatening practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) according to new data from the United Nations, released on 6 February, the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. The data show that FGM/C is becoming less prevalent overall and the younger generation is less vulnerable to the practice.
In the 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East, where the practice of FGM/C is concentrated, on average, 36 per cent of girls aged 15-19 have been cut compared to an estimated 53 per cent of women aged 45-49. The decline is particularly sharp in some countries: in Kenya, for example, women aged 45-49 are three times more likely to have been cut than girls aged 15-19.
“This progress shows it is possible to end FGM/C” said UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake. “FGM/C is not only deeply wrong, we can and must end it to help millions of girls and women lead healthier lives.”
These recent estimates produced by UNICEF show that at least 120 million girls and women have experienced FGM/C in these 29 countries. Given present trends, as many as 30 million girls under the age of 15 may still be at risk. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C is currently making progress in preventing these girls and future generations from being exposed to FGM/C.
The new estimates follow the unanimous adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution in December 2012, calling on Member States to intensify efforts towards the complete elimination of FGM/C.
Since 2008, when the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM/C was established, nearly 10,000 communities in 15 countries, representing about 8 million people, have renounced the practice. Last year, a total of 1,775 communities across Africa publicly declared their commitment to end FGM/C.

All Iraq News reports the UN called on the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation and finds that 8% of Iraqi women ages 15 to 49 have had some form of FGM -- the bulk of the 8% reside in Erbil, Kirkuk and Sulaimaniya.



For the fourth day in a row, Iraq sees a suicide bombing. Bi Mingxin (Xinhua) reports a suicide car bombing at an Abu Ghraib military base resulting in the deaths of 5 soldiers with another nine injured.  Alsumaria notes that the attack took place at noon local time.   All Iraq News reports an attack on Mosul checkpoint left 2 police officers dead.  Alsumaria adds that the corpse of a 22-year-old female was found in Kirkuk -- signs of torture and gunshot wounds -- and that a Baghdad assasination attempt (by sticky bombing) on the Minister of the Enivornment's Sargon Lazar Salioh left his driver injured.  Press TV notes a Mussayib attack which left 3 police officers dead and three more injured. And Alsumaria is reporting that a Salahuddin Province bombing (outside of Tikrit) claimed the life of 1 military officer and left two soldiers injured (all three were part of the Tigris Operation Command) and they note 1 man shot dead in Mosul by unknown assailants.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 76 people killed this month by violence in Iraq.  76 in the first five days of the month alone.

As security is needed in Iraq, Alsumaria reports that Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons/Daughters Of Iraq") announced today that at least 80% of their weapons are out of date.  Kitabat reports that the Ministry of Justice announced yesterday that since December 21, 2010, 200 prisoners have died in Iraqi prisons.  Consider that another reason for the attempted prison breaks.

Tuesday saw a win for the Iraqi press.  Al Rafidayn reports that the despised 'cybercrime bill' has been dropped.  Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory issued a statement praising the Parliament and the Chair of the Committee on Culture and Information for abolishing the bill noting that it had met with harsh opposition since the bill became public -- many journalists -- in and out of Iraq -- condemned the bill and over 40 international organizations also came out against it.  Among the over 40 speaking out?  Human Rights Watch which noted last July:

The 16-page report, “Iraq’s Information Crimes Law: Badly Written Provisionsand Draconian Punishments Violate Due Processand Free Speech,” is a legal analysis of the draft law. It finds that the draft law is part of a broad effort by authorities to suppress peaceful dissent by criminalizing legitimate information sharing and networking activities. The proposed law had its first reading before Iraq’s Council of Representatives on July 27, 2011; a second reading is expected as early as July 2012.

“This bill would give Iraqi authorities yet another tool to suppress dissent, especially on the Internet, whichIraqi journalists and activists increasingly turn to for information and open debate,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Council of Representatives should reject lawsthat would undermine the freedoms enshrined in Iraq’s2005 constitution.”

Jillian C. York and Maira Sutton (Electronic Frontier Foundation) observe, "Fortunately, it looks as if this bill will not become law. A document released on January 22, 2013 and shared by Social Media Exchange (SMEX) shows that a request was made by the parliamentary Culture and Media Committee and approved by the Speaker of the House to revoke the egregious law."  Also dropped is a boycott.  All Iraq News reports that Iraqiya members in Nouri's Cabinet have returned to Cabinet hearings saying that they feel protesters are being listened to.  (They boycotted hearings last month saying the protesters were not being listened to.)  The paper notes Ayada Allawi declared that a replacement needed to be named for Nouri because Nouri is unable to manage the state's affairs.  There have been calls for early parliamentary elections.  Whether that happens or not, Iraq is supposed to hold provincial elections in April. 

When the Independent High Electoral Commission was truly independent, Nouri tried to take it over.  Unable to do so, he would imprison the Committee Chair and a Commissioner.  Why isn't that still happening with the new Committee Chair?  Because Muqdad al-Sharifi is in Nouri's pockect.    AFP reports: that Nouri's little puppet declared that "anti-governmnet rallies" are causing security issues which could harm the April provincial elections. 

The problem is the "anti-government rallies"?

The only people who have died at the rallies were 7 Iraqis who were demonstrating.  (False attempts to tie the deaths of 2 Iraqi soldiers to the protests failed some time ago.)  But 76 people died through yesterday from violence.  The protesters are exercising their democratic rights guaranteed to them by their country's Constitution.  One would assume someone in charge of elections would applaud that.


Toby Dodge is the author of the new book Iraq: From  War To A New Authoritarianism.   Dodge is a British political scientist and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.  Last month he spoke about Iraq at the London School of Economics and Political Thought.  Excerpt.


Toby Dodge:   Now the national elections of March 2010 saw something quite remarkable, I think.  It saw a sustained challenge to that exclusive elite command.  Iraqiya  -- a coalition of political parties led by Ayad Allawi capitalizing on a rising nationalism in Iraq as violence decreased -- ran, I think, an incredibly effective grassroots campaign and mobilized enough folks to get 91 -- 91 seats compared to Maliki's 89.  However, that challenge to the exclusive elite pact created a counter-challenge by the politicians who'd benefited from the exclusive elite pact and what you saw from March to November was a period of extended and acrimonious negotiations.  In the end, I would argue, and there are probably people in the audience who disagree, that what happened was with the Erbil Agreement of November 2010, Iraqiya was brought back into another government of national unity on the basis of the exclusive elite pact.  Iraq's Islamic party had long failed to exist as meaningful electoral forces was pushed out, Iraqiya was brought in  -- "No, no, you can represent the Sunni population.  We'll give the Ministry of Finance -- a bit problematic at the moment -- we'll give you the vice president -- also problematic -- and that'll be enough."  Now think about the 2,849,000 people who voted for Iraqiya in March, they've seen the influence of their votes on the government systematically minimized ever since.  And their parliamentary representatives brought into government only to be persecuted and driven into exile in the case of [Vice President Tareq al-] Hashemi.   The continuation of this exclusive elite pact cannot but alienate increasing numbers of Iraq's population, exacerbating the already powerful, popular sentiment that the government is failing to deliver on their needs because of corruption.  So in 2013, ten years after the invasion, Iraq is a state whose prime minister is increasingly concentrating political and coercive power in his own hands.   He and the rest of the ruling elite are kept in power by a million man security force which is restricted by little or no democratic or parliamentary oversight.   In February 2011, the Arab Spring arrived in Iraq with mass public demonstrations breaking out, certainly in Baghdad but also in Basra and intriguingly up in the Kurdish Regional Government areas of north Iraq. These demonstrations -- these popular expressions of alienation and anger at the corrupt ruling elite were suppressed by extended violence.  This is the outcome of regime change a decade after invasion: An increasingly authoritarian government unable to deliver services to its population, increasingly reliant on an over-developed armed force.




Dropping back to yesterday afternoon, the US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing on the use of temporary disability ratings.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  Our hearing topic today will focus on temporary total disability ratings.  Temporary total disability ratings serve a very important function in the benefits scheme.  This type of rating is assigned when it is established by medical evidence that surgery or certain treatment was performed, necessitating a period of recovery during which the veteran cannot work. However, according to a January 2011 report by the VA Office of the Inspector General, VBA has not been correctly processing and monitoring such claims.  As a result, the OIG stated that since January 1993, VBA has overpaid veterans a net amount of $943 million.  The OIG also stated that without timely action, VBA would overpay veterans a projected $1.1 billion over the next five years.  These numbers are troubling, to say the least.  As all of us here today are aware, our nation’s fiscal health is one of this Congress’s top priorities.  Part of this process includes trimming government spending and eliminating government waste.  It is my hope that by bringing attention to this topic, we can ensure that every dollar appropriated to VA is being spent properly on care and benefits for our veterans.  We heard from VA in June of last year during sworn testimony, that these errors were due to a computer glitch.  VA advised that the glitch would be fixed by July 2012.  Nonetheless, two new Regional Office audits issued by the OIG last month found that 50 percent of the temporary 100 percent disability evaluations reviewed were incorrect. The explanations given in the OIG audits stated that the 50 percent accuracy rate occurred because staff did not establish controls to monitor the proposed reductions initially, nor did they schedule future medical examinations as required. So -- something doesn’t add up here.  If the computer glitch was fixed in July 2012 but over 50 percent of temporary total rating claims are still being processed incorrectly as of January 2013, then that leads me to believe that these are human errors, not computer errors.

100% Temporary Disability Rating?  "A total 100% temporary disability rating will be assigned, without regard to the rating schedule, when a service connected disability has required hospitalization treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, for a period in excess of 21 days."   Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake submitted a written statement for the record.  He noted that temporary disability ratings rarely affected members of his organization:

That being said, temporary total disability ratings serve an important and practical purpose for many veterans.  The determination for temporary total disability ratings are governed by the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.29, Ratings for service-connected disabilities requiring hospital treatment or observation, and 38 C.F.R. § 4.30, Convalescent ratings.  Temporary increases to VA disability ratings in accordance with the provisions of Paragraphs 29 and 30 are simple adjustments to running compensation awards that can be accomplished by employees with a minimum of training.  Temporary increases to compensation Paragraph 29 are determined by the verified dates of hospitalization.  Meanwhile, adjustments under the provisions of Paragraph 30 are established by rating action based on available medical information.  In each case, the dates of entitlement are clearly indicated, and with only a small amount of attention to detail, there should be no significant errors.

Runyan continues as Subcommittee Chair.  The new Ranking Member of the Subcommittee is Dina Titus.  There were two panels.  The first panel was Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman and VA's Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations Linda Halliday (accompanied by Larry Reinkemeyer and Brent Arronte).  The second panel was the VA's Diane Rubens.  While the issue of overpayment causes alarm in the current fiscal climate, overpayment isn't the only problem.


Ranking Member Dina Titus:  As the Chair mentioned, and it bears repeating, a billion dollars is something to be worried about.  But this doesn't just go one way in terms of overpayments.  At the Reno VA Regional Office, which serves my Congressional district in southern Nevada, the Inspector General found that over half of the 100% disability evaluations were incorrectly processed.  And while a number of these involved overpayments, there were also some underpayments.  And we certainly don't want our veterans to be underpaid.  For example, we found one veteran with service connected bone cancer and prostate cancer who was underpaid nearly $10,000 over a period of three years. 


We'll note one one exchange from the hearing.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  Ms. Halliday, in your opinion, why is it the VBA failed to take adequate and timely measures to address the -- the systematic problems?

Linda Halliday:  Reliance that they needed an IT fix.  And that took some coordination between the VBA office and out office of OINT.  We kept telling them it is not just the IT fix.  What we were finding were people -- the VARO [Veterans Affairs Regional Office] staff were not making proper input to put these diaries in place.  Regardless of whether you had an IT fix in place, that action had to occur.  So it's been awhile that I don't believe VBA has been aggressive enough in addressing that -- that piece of it.  I know recently, Ms. Rubens had laid out some corrective action that included training which is consistently recommend in the benefits inspection reviews to try and reduce the human error associated with processing some of these claims.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  And -- and going back -- and you mentioned it in your testimony there about the targeted completion date which was moved several times -- to September 30, [20]11, to December 30, [20]11, to June 30, [20]12 and then to December 31st, [20]12.  Do you know if the December 31st, '12 deadline was ever met?  Or has it been pushed back even further?

Linda Halliday: We haven't tested for it, but the evidence would be right now the benefits inspection are still identifying substantial errors.

Subcommittee Chair Jon Runyan:  And then finally, uhm, an alarming statistic in your written testimony says that only 53 regional offices have been inspected since your national audit -- have been fully followed by VBA policy and processing temporary disability claims evaluations.  Can you further elaborate on the extent that these problems are due to human error as opposed to the computer glitch?  And do you agree that -- with VBA's insistence that -- system glitches are the reason for these errors?

Linda Halliday:  Yeah, I'd like to ask Brent Arronte -- since he has spent so much time in our VA regional offices doing the inspections -- to filed that.

Brent Arronte:  What our inspections have-have shown is about 46% of the errors that we've seen with suspense date is what VBA is saying was the result of a systems glitch.  We never found a system's glitch.  To us a glitch means the system was not working as intended.  We spoke with some of the architecture behind this, I think in 2010, and they told us that the system was never developed to put these -- to ensure that these diary dates were populated into the system.  With that, we-we -- Two of the fixes that VBA has indicated that they have implemented, one in 2011 and one in 2012, we have not tested that yet.  We haven't obtained the data to see if those fixes are working systematically.  But what we have seen is about 25% of the errors are related purely to human error -- where staff is not putting in the -- or cancelling reminder notifications inadvertently, not understanding how to process reminder notifications and that results in the same effect of the benefit being paid when there's no evidence showing entitlement.
The Veterans Administration should be embarrassed that a hearing took place where the Inspector General explained that they refused to listen and that they repeatedly moved the date back.  The Secretary of the VA, Eric Shinseki, should be asked to explain how that happened?  He is supposed to be the head of the department, he is supposed to provide leadership.  This is just like, after the scandal of veterans not receiving their education checks, he mentions to Congress that he was informed of this impending problem right after he took over as Secretary of the VA.  He should have been called to the carpet for that but instead everyone apparently agreed to look the other way.  From the October 14, 2009 snapshot covering the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing that day:


Erick Shinseki: A plan was written, very quickly put together, uh, very short timelines, I'm looking at the certificates of eligibility uh being processed on 1 May and  enrollments 6 July, checks having to flow through August.  A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together the  plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen. Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in place.



But he didn't bother to let Congress know.  He didn't bother to warn the veterans who might be counting on those checks.  And this all got ignored.  Now we learn that the issue of 100% temporary disability pay has not been fixed and part of the reason for that failure is that they don't want to listen to the Inspector General's office.  Where is the accountability?

Halliday said at yesterday's hearing, "We had expected VBA to keep their commitment to work this national requirement and we just watched slippage upon slippage.  I think you have to ask the Department, VBA, why it took so long."  She might as well have been talking about the electronic record that VA and DoD were tasked with developing.  Mary Mosquera (Federal Computer Week) reported April 9, 2009:
Obama said it was time “to give our veterans a 21st-century VA," adding that there is no comprehensive system that enables a smooth transition of health care records between DOD and VA.
“That results in extraordinary hardship for an awful lot of veterans, who end up finding their records lost, unable to get their benefits processed in a timely fashion,” Obama said. Access to electronic records is essential to modern health care delivery and the paperless administration of benefits, he added.
“That’s why I’m asking both departments to work together to define and build a seamless system of integration with a simple goal: When a member of the armed forces separates from the military, he or she will no longer have to walk paperwork from a DOD duty station to a local VA health center; their electronic records will transition along with them and remain with them forever,” he said.

A seamless system of integration.  It would, Barack said, "give our veterans a 21st-century VA."  He wasn't pulling notions out of thin air.  In 2007, Commissioners Bob Dole and Donna Shalala were named to head The President's Commission On Care For America's Returning Wounded Warriors.  The commission came up with this idea and, in their final report, warned, "Meanwhile, congressional or departmental reform efforts should resist imposing new requirements that may result in duplicative or uncoordinated electronic systems and, instead, encourage the streamlining of today's systems and facilitate communication across them."

Does Shinseki think he can just blow off the tasks he's assigned?  Does he not get how this impacts veterans?  November 11, 2009, the VA's Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergrovernmental Affairs Tammy Duckworth appeared on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR).

Tammy Duckworth: Well what didn't work so well -- this is one of the first things I brought up to [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki when he interviewed me -- was the fact that we did not have a seamless transition of our military records from DoD to VA. When I left Walter Reed with my full medical records and I went to my VA hospital for the first time, I had to strip down to prove that I was an amputee. Even though he could see that I was an amputee and he had the medical records from the surgeon who amputated my legs. And we're immediately fixing that.  Back in May of this year, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates and Secretary Shinseki agreed to a program where we're going to develop virtual, lifetime, electronic records. So that from the day you raise your hand to enlist in the army to the day that you're laid to rest in one of our national shrines, your records follow you. And this will be a monumental change in how VA and DoD hand off and care for our veterans.


So in 2009, Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth told him in very concrete terms how this could effect a person transitioning from service member to veteran.  Did he not listen?  Duckworth is now a member of the US Congress, House Rep Tammy Duckworth.  I called out Shinseki this morning and Shirley and Martha advise e-mails felt I was giving Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta a pass because I know him.  I know Leon, I like Leon.  I've held him accountable when needed and haven't worried about 'tone.'  This isn't Leon's issue.  He's out the door, for one thing.  For another, he won't even have 18 months as Secretary of Defense (unless Chuck Hagel's nomination gets tanked).  If Hagel had been confirmed last week and had made the announcement Tuesday with Shinseki, I wouldn't have called out Hagel.  It's not Hagel's issue. 

Shinseki has been the consistent under Barack.  Dropping back to the July 25th snapshot to note that day's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing:

This morning, US House Rep Jeff Miller noted that "in 1961 John F. Kennedy said we'd put a man on the moon, eight years later, we were there.  We're talking about an integrated electronic health records by 2017.  Why could we put a man on the moon in eight years and we're not starting from ground zero on the electronic health record -- why is it taking so long?" He was asking that of the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki who were appearing before a joint-hearing of the House Armed Services and House Veterans Affairs Committee.  

Of course no real answer was given.  A grinning -- apparently amused -- Shinseki began his non-answer by declaring that "I can't account for the previous ten years."  Though he didn't say it, he also apparently couldn't account for the three years that he's been Secretary of the VA.  Three years and seven months.  You'd think Shinseki would be able to speak to the issue.  He couldn't.  He could offer that he met with Panetta four times this year with plans for a fifth meeting.  This was the same amount he met with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates but, apparently, in a few months less time.   I have no idea what that or his ridiculous grin was about. 

But I do think Shinseki may have inadvertently provided an answer for the delay when he went on to declare,  "It's taken us seventeen months to get to an agreement that both Secretary Panetta and I signed that describes the way forward."  There's the problem right there. 

Back in March 2011 what was Shinseki bragging about?  As Bob Brewin (Nextgov.com) reported, "Veteran Affairs Sectretary Eric Shinseki said Thursday he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed on March 17 that their departments would develop a common electronic health record system."  So that was agreed to in March 2011.  But it took Shinseki and and Gates 17 months to figure out how?  There's your time waster right there.  And it was not needed.  Shinseki and Panette did not need to 'invent' a damn thing.  This is not a new issue.  VA has long ago addressed what they need with regards to records and DoD has identified the same.  And after this had been done (and redone), Robert Dole and Donna Shalala served on the Dole -Shalala Commission coming up with many of the same things.  The Dole -Shalala Commission was established in 2007 and formally known as the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.   Appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee February 7, 2008, VA's Dr. James Peake testified that this electronic record was "a critical recommendation in the Dole-Shalala Commission report."

So he and Gates agreed what their departments needed to do in March 2011.  Then, in June 2011, Panetta becomes Secretary of Defense and Shinseki decides to start all over and spend 17 months coming to an agreement with Leon?  This falls on Shinseki.  He has not delivered on the task.  Yet again.

At what point is there accountability?  At yesterday's joint-press conference, Shinseki bragged that he and Panetta had just held the ninth meeting ("in 18 months") and they stressed the "commitment of both of our departments to a single, common, joint integrated electronic health record, the IEHR."  The ninth meeting, Shinskei explained "was about how to get there."  Really?  Panetta's got one foot out the door and you're meeting with him "about how to get there"?  Barack Obama tasked you with this duty back in April of 2009 and, in February of 2013, you're having a meeting "about how to get there"?

There's a lot of confusion as to what's going on.  Patricia Kime (Army Times) does a great job covering where things stand.  The same can't be said for others.  What's taking place is that the actual task is being tossed aside.  Instead, some low rent version of what was asked for is going to be assembled.   Let's quote Senator Patty Murray from yesterday's press release.

“I’m disappointed that the VA and the Pentagon are now backing away from a truly seamless medical records system. While this is a very complex problem, we must provide the best care for our servicemembers and veterans. That means the departments must meet this challenge by working together. What they are now proposing is not the fully integrated, end-to-end IT solution that this problem demands. VA and DOD have been at this for years and have sunk over $1 billion into making this the cornerstone of a nationwide electronic medical records initiative. I intend to follow-up with both Secretaries to find out why this decision was made.”


Senator Murray is the outgoing Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  She's right that, after wasting $1 billion in taxpayer dollars, they're now refusing to live up to what was promised.  

It's not going to be the full medical records -- as people were promised.  Instead, as the Defense Dept revealed through various flunkies on a press call yesterday, "information on prescriptions or information on lab results that will be exchanged on all patients, and most critically, in a standard data format at the point in 2014, so the data looks exactly the same between the two systems."  That is a huge come down from an electronic record that would carry all the patient information and follow the service member on over to the VA.  This was an expensive proposal.  But it was thought that veterans' health was worth it and it was thought that this would also help lower some health costs (both by being paperless and by being a complete record which would mean tests wouldn't be accidentally duplicated since you had a complete record). 

Leon Panetta said at yesterday's joint-press conference, "Achieving the goal has taken a tremendous amount of collaboration at all levels.  But I'm proud to say that our department are now working together more closely than ever before.  We recognized that bringing together two large bureaucracies, trying to make those bureaucracies work together to form a seamless support system for all service members and veterans is not an easy challenge.  It's tough."   You need Leon criticism?  Every word just quoted was ignorant and uninformed.  Your proud that the two departments are working more closely than before?  Well that's been the assigned task since 2007.  Two different administrations have called for that.  It's not "an easy challenge"?  You're right, Leon, it's not "an easy challenge."  Because a challenge would be Barack saying to you, "Let's all work harder on meeting the needs of our veterans and service members."  That's a goal, a challenge.  "You and VA create . . ."  That's an assignment. Both departments were tasked with that assignment back in 2009.  It's tough?  Well, it's an assignment.  It's a job assignment.  If you're not up to it, you're not up to the job (or you're saying that President Barack Obama was unrealistic when he handed out the assignment).  It's amazing how everyone shirks responsibility.  A task was assigned in 2009.  The task has not been achieved.  That means you failed.  In the real world, that means you get fired.  This lack of accountability is exactly why there will be little concern over government layoffs if sequestration takes effect.  The American people are tired of seeing nothing get accomplished over and over.  They wants scalps at this point.  It's a shame it will most likely be the scalps of the overworked civil service employees and not those in management who are supposed to be getting results (but repeatedly fail to do so).

The House Veterans Affairs Committee leadership and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee leadership issued a joint-press release today:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs today faulted the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs for backing off plans to create a single computer system to integrate electronic medical records for troops and veterans.
Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said: “I am deeply disappointed by the VA and Defense Department decision to back away from a commitment to develop and implement a truly integrated, single, electronic health record. President Obama charged the departments with creating a seamless system of integration so that service members transitioning from active duty to civilian life don’t have to worry about whether their health records will be lost or their claims delayed.  An integrated record would allow for a streamlined and timely claims process, faster decisions on benefits, less duplication in medical testing and more efficient, cost-effective treatment for both physical and mental health needs. Now more than ever we need greater cooperation between the departments to solve the serious challenges that continue to confront our service members and veterans.  I will continue to work to achieve better coordination by the departments and to ensure that the needs of veterans are met.”
House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) said: “The decision by DOD and VA to turn their backs on a truly integrated electronic health record system is deeply troubling. The need for a record system integrated across all DOD and VA components has been universally accepted for years, and until yesterday, both agencies have given us nothing but assurances they were working toward that goal. Previous attempts by DOD and VA to use disparate computer systems to produce universal electronic health records have failed, and unfortunately it appears they are repeating past mistakes. When DOD and VA take shortcuts, the veterans and service members under their care will be shortchanged.”      
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C), the ranking member of the Senate committee, said: “The fact that VA and DoD would reverse course on a plan they have been working towards for years that would create a coordinated electronic health record system between the two agencies is concerning and disappointing.  I am concerned about what this means for our nation’s service members and veterans, particularly those who will be transitioning from active duty service to civilian life in the near future.  We owe it to our nation’s defenders to do all we can to care for them and provide the most effective, efficient service we can, and coordination and communication between these two agencies is absolutely vital.” 
Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), ranking member of the House committee, said: “This is a huge setback and completely unacceptable. For years we have been told by both agencies that progress was made and that things were on track.  I’m disappointed that our nation’s two largest government agencies – one of which is the world’s foremost developer of high-tech machines and cyber-systems – could not come together on something that would have been so beneficial to those that served. We have just witnessed hundreds of millions of dollars go down the drain.”
Additional Contacts:
Michael Briggs (Sanders) 202 224-5141
David Ward (Burr) 202 228-2971
Ed Gilman (Michaud) 202 225-6306

 


iraq
norman solomon
cindy sheehan
xinhua
bi mingxin
all iraq news
alsumaria
kitabat