|
Tuesday, February 28, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, at least 8
people are killed and eleven left injured in Baghdad, Iraq wants out of Chapter
VII, the US Senate Budget Committee launches an attack on Social Security
(Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta joins in on the attack), the US Defense Dept
is spending $50 billion a day on health care, Troy Gilbert's family learns the
search is back on, and more.
Leon Panetta is the US Secretary of Defense. Today he declared that the
Defense Department -- not the VA -- was spending $50 billion a day on health
care. If that number seems questionable, well after Panetta had mentioned it,
he was asked again about the figure to be sure he hadn't been misunderstood.
Senator Rob Portman: You talked about health care earlier. Let me
give you a statistic that I have. I hope it's not right because it's scary.
$17.4 billion is what you spent on health care in 2000 and you said earlier that
we're spending $50 billion a day. Is that correct?
Secretary Leon Panetta: That's right.
The Defense Dept spending fifty billion dollars a day might lead some to be
tempted to cut corners. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee.
Senator Patty Murray: Secretary Panetta, you know I spent a lot of
time last year on the Joint- Select Committee on Defecit Reduction working with
Democrats and Republicans to tackle some of the issues that you're talking about
today. All of us went into the Committee knowing that sequestration would be a
terrible outcome and we understood that, across the board, cuts to these
programs middle class families and most Americans depend on would be bad
policy. That was really the point of the bi-partisan triggers that Senator
[Harry] Reid and Speaker [of the House John] Boehner agreed to -- they were
supposed to be painful to push us towards a compromise. So I was really
disappointed that despite the fact that we put a lot on our side, some pretty
painful cuts out, we couldn't get to an agreement because we couldn't come to
that shared sacrfice moment. I'm still willing to make those compromises
needed to get to that. I hope everyone on both sides are because I think we're
all really concerned about where that's going to go. But I -- I didn't want to
focus on that today on my time, I wanted to ask you a question about an issue
that has become very important and recently come to light at Madigan Army
Medical Center in my home state of Washington. A number of soldiers had their
behavioral health diagnoses changed from PTSD to other behavioral health
disorders that didn't come with the same level of benefits. However, following,
as you may know, an independent review at Walter Reed, a number of those
diagnoses was changed back to PTSD. Obviously, this is really troubling. But
what's even more troubling to me and to many service members and their family
members in my home state and to a lot of people I've been talking to allegation
that the decision to strip those soldiers of a PTSD diagnoses came from a unit
at Madigan that seems to be taking the cost of a PTSD diagnosis into account
when they were making their decision. Now there's an investigation going on into
this but really, to me, one of the things that's clear is that oversight within
the army and at the departmental level allowed this break from standard
diagnoses process to go unchecked. So I'm really concerned about how the
services handle non-PTSD behavioral health conditions like adjustment disorder
where service members are administratively separated instead of going through
the physical disablity process and I wanted to ask you given that an adjustment
disorder is compensable, VA and DoD is required to use the VA's rating schedule,
what is the reason for DoD treating adjustment disorder
differently?
Secretary Leon Panetta: Well I was, uh, I was very concerned when
I got the report about what happened at Madigan. And I think, uh, it-it
reflects the fact that frankly we have not learned how to effectively deal with
that and we have to. We-we-we need to make sure that, uh, that we have the
psychiatrists, the psychologists and the medical people who can make these
evaluations because these are real problems. I've met with men and women who
have suffered this problem. Just met with a couple last night and they had to
go through hell in order to be able to get the diagnosis that was required here.
And that should not happen. So we are investigating obviously what took place
but I've directed our Personnel Undersecretary to look at this issue and to
correct it because it's unacceptable now to have the process we have in
place.
Senator Patty Murray: Well I appreciate the attention given to
this. It's going to take a lot of work. And I'm deeply concerned when someone
comes home from war that they have to go through a diagnosis like this. It's
hard enough after you've been told to "man up" during your time of service to
then face the fact that you have PTSD -- and then to have that reversed and
changed back and told there's nothing wrong with you is just devastating to
these men and women and their families. So this is something I'm going to be
following very closely. I want your personal attention on it. And I think that
the issue raised at Madigan really shows us that we need to have a more clear,
consistent guideline for clinical practices for diagnosing and treating
PTSD.
Secretary Leon Panetta: I agree with that. I agree with that.
Abosluetly. You're absolutely right.
Senator Patty Murray: I never want to hear anybody in any service
say we're not going to give you a diagnosis of PTSD because we have a budget
problem.
Secretary Leon Panetta: That's for sure.
Senator Patty Murray: Okay. Thank you very much.
The exchanges took place this morning at the Senate Budget Committee
hearing with the Committee hearing from Secretary Panetta and Gen Martin Dempsey
(Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). Senator Kent Conrad is the Chair and
he's a pretty lousy chair. The House is limited to five minutes for their
exchanges. The Senate has a longer time limit for each senator to ask
questions. Except when Kent Conrad's in charge. To be sure Panetta could leave
by noon, Conrad limited everyone -- but himself -- to five minutes.
Senator John Kerry is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And like a strong chair, when time is tight -- due to voting or a witness
needing to leave by a certain time -- Kerry is more than happy to table his
opening statement. To give a sentence or two off the cuff to start the hearing
and just let his prepared remarks be entered into the record. Not so with Kent
Conrad who seems to believe that his every repeated bromide is of value (they're
not) and should be heard (they shouldn't). He was curt to the point of outright
rude to two Senators on the Committee (Senator Kelly AYotte and Senator Bernie
Sanders). But if you were one of his pets -- Senator Porter -- he would give
you the times up look (and Porter acknowledged it by noting his time was up) but
still let you babble on.
Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Armed Services Committee. And he's
always able to keep things moving without being rude. He maintains his cool and
usually a warm smile. Chair Levin also doesn't take his glasses off after he's
done with his own questions and stare blankly into space for long periods of
time.
Conrad wasn't fair and he didn't impose the time limit on himself. He'd
note he was over the limit (such as during the first round) and continue
prattling on and then allow -- on 'his' time -- one of the witneses to speak at
length. But let Ayotte or Sanders attempt to clarify a response and he walked
right over them in the rudest manner I've ever seen in a Senate Committee
hearing.
Leon Panetta fed right into it and had his little drama moment as he
decided to set professional aside so that he could lecture a Committee, his
voice breaking and rising, that "Look, uh, this Congress proposed, as part of
the Budget Control Act, a trillion dollars in savings off the discretionary
budget."
He took a long pause there while shaking his head no frantically and
waving a pointed finger at the Committee before continuing:
You can't meet the challenge that you're facing in this country by
continuing to go back at discretionary spending. That's less than a third of
federal spending. Now, if you don't -- if you're not dealing with the
two-thirds -- that's entitlement spending -- if you're not dealing with revenues
and you keep going back to the same place, frankly, you're not going to make
it. You're going to hurt this country! You're going to hurt this country's
security not only by cutting defense but very frankly by cutting discretionary
spending that deals with the quality of life in this country.
Conrad, of course, is a well known opponent of Social Security, one who
wants to destroy it. One who can get so carried away with his desire to destroy
it that facts get lost along the way ( see this PolitiFact check on his claims
about what percent Social Security was of the budget -- he was LYING and
PoliFact's fact check demonstrates that but they're too scared to call him a
liar -- I will: LIAR!!) He's called it broke and worse publicly. Kent Conrad
is an enemy of Social Security. And though the topic was supposedly the Defense
Dept budget, Conrad made plenty of time to stick knives into Social Security.
As for Panetta, he is one of the Cabinet Secretaries who forgets his place
repeatedly. Repeatedly and publicly. Considering all the scandals DoD has,
you'd think he'd be focusing on them and not trying to figure out how to 'solve'
problems beyond his jurisdiction. Dropping back to February 16th:
Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy)
reports on US military maneuvers, specifically the
movement of cash. The 2013 budget finds the Defense Department hiding $3
billion. To ensure that DoD has $3 billion in discretionary spending, the White
House budget hides that figure under war spending. Rogin quotes Gordon Adams
from the Clinton Administration stating this happens all the time and, for
Rogin, that's that. Actually, it's not. War spending will not be subject to any
automatic caps should sequestering be triggered. That's why it's being hidden.
Who determined the caps that trigger sequestering? Who implemented it? Congress.
So what you actually have is an attempt to get around the laws passed by
Congress. Getting around the laws -- when you don't have a high priced defense
team -- is also known as breaking the laws.
A case could be made that the
White House is engaging in accounting fraud and doing so willfully since the
intent to mislead and circumvent the Congress is so clear. This lust for
fraudulent budgetary techniques may go a long way towards explaining why the
Barack administration has refused to prosecute Wall Street corruption to the
full extent of the law. That's not even factoring in how this attempt at smoke
& mirrors with the budget goes against Barack's public pledge of
transparency.I think if your department attempted to lie to
Congress and to the American people about $3 billion dollars, you really don't
have the ethical force to finger-wag.
When Panetta finished his speech, instead of reminding Panetta that he was
no longer in Congress and that his concern now should be the Defense Dept and
that Social Security is not something that Panetta's opinions are needed on,
Conrad had to babble on for over another minute insisting that "entitlements"
needed to be cut, blathering on despite the fact that he'd already noted he was
over the five minute mark, he'd already noted he was a minute over the five
minute mark he imposed on others, and yet, his exchange would take up two more
minutes and 32 seconds. But Ayotte and Sanders weren't allowed to clarify their
issues. Bernie's mistake was in not grasping that if you wanted to attack
Social Security, Chair Kent Conrad would give you and Panetta all the time in
the world. Later on in the hearing, Panetta would call for an increase in
tri-care fees and more. (More? He thinks conpensation will be reduced -- "I
believe" -- that's compensation for veterans. People should be very offended by
the little dance Conrad and Panetta did.)
Maybe Conrad had to shut down Bernie Sanders because Bernie was getting to
the heart of the matter, addressing where money is wasted.
Senator Bernie Sanders: I'm going to pick up on a slightly
different tangent than my friend from Alabama and suggest to you that everybody
understands that our country faces huge economic challenges, our middle class is
collapsing, we have more people living in poverty than probably anytime in the
modern history of this country which is one of the reasons that MediCaid is up,
one of the reasons that food stamps are up. We've got 50 million people who
have no health insurance and millions of families are struggling to send their
kids to college or to pay for child care. So how we deal with every aspect of
the budget including the military impacts on every other. Now the reality is --
as I understand it, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong -- military spending
has tripled since 1997. Tripled. Not exactly ignoring the military. And we
now spend more on defense -- as I understand it -- then the rest of the world
combined. So I want to start off by asking you, Mr. Secretary, my
understanding is that the United States still operates 268 military
installations in Germany and 124 in Japan. Now in Germany, people all have
health care. In Germany, their kids go to college without having to pay for it,
as a matter of fact. So I'm kind of interested to know why we have 268
military bases defending Germany when I thought that war [WWII] was won a few
years ago. Somebody help me out on that one.
Secretary Leon Panetta: I'll also yield to General Dempsey on this
one. First of all, that 268 number sounds very high. We've cut almost 140
bases out of Europe over the last few years and, uh, as a result of bringing
down two additional brigades out of Europe, we will -- we will bring down that
infrastructure even more.
Senator Bernie Sanders: Mr. Secretary, I may be wrong but that's
the best information we have.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Okay.
Senator Bernie Sanders: By the way, why are we -- WWII's been
over for a few years. Why are we -- Who are we defending? The Soviet Union
doesn't exist. Why do we have that kind of presence in Germany when we have 50
million people in this country who have no health insurance?
Gen Martin Dempsey: I can't answer the, uh, the latter part of
your question, Senator. But I will say that I'm advocate of maintaining our
relationship with NATO. NATO gets maligned on occasion. They've done some
great work around the world. They've got a $300 billion budget in the
aggregate. If we go to war tomorrow, who's going to be the first people we're
going to ask?
Senator Bernie Sanders: But who are we going to war with in Europe,
do you think?
Gen Martin Dempsey: No, no. That's not the point, Senator. If we
go to war tomorrow, the first people we'll ask to go with us are the
Europeans.
Senator Bernie Sanders: But does that answer the question why we
have that type of -- 268 military installations ?
Gen Martin Dempsey: Well, Senator, I'll have to -- I'll get you
the data. I've spent 12 years in Germany, I can't imagine -- I've never
counted up anywhere near 268 installations, but we'll take that one for the
record.
Well then Dempsey isn't very observant or he's not very honest. Last year,
Senator Jon Tester was discussing the "military installations" with
then-Secretary Robert Gates. In fact, it's documented in this press release
from December 15th of last year (two months ago) entitled " Senators join forces to save money and strenghten
U.S. military" which clearly states "that the United States still operates
268 military installations in Germany and 124 in Japan."
So Dempsey either has serious observation issues -- a very serious
liability for the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs -- or else he's lying. Panetta's
not off either. Gates was Secretary of Defense through July. Senator Tester
and Senator Kay Baily Hutchison were discussing the bases with Gates. When
Gates left in July of last year, the number still stood at 268. So to claim
that the number's been dropping for years -- no, it hasn't. Again, lack of
knowledge or lying.
Bernie Sanders was correct.
Senator Bernie Sanders: I want to pick up on another question -- a
question that the Chairman asked about defense contractors. My understanding is
that in the past that the DoD has estimated that we have some 500,00 to 600,000
people who are military contractors. Is-is -- And that the GAO has estimated
that number at 900,000.
Under Secretary of Defense Robert Hale: You know, I think I'd have
to see the definitions of what we're including. Are we including private sector
contractors who are supporting others? That multiplying effect?
Senator Bernie Sanders: I suspect we are.
Under Secretary of Defense Robert Hale: The numbers I'm giving you
-- and I agree they are rough in number -- are the portion, the full time
equivalents that we're paying and I believe it's around 300,000.
Senator Bernie Sanders: I had an interesting experience. I was in
Afghanistan maybe a year and a half ago. And we were being taken around by two
fellows in an armored car. One was with US military, one was a private
contractor. They were both doing basically the same work. The guy who was the
contractor was making substantially more than the fellow who was in the army.
Does that make sense? Can you talk about that?
Secretary Leon Panetta: Uh -- what -- Uh, let me just say,
Senator, that the area you've pointed out is an area that frankly needs
attention at the Defense Dept. One of the reasons we are looking at $60 billion
in trying to make the place more efficient is going after contractors and trying
to reduce those numbrs. So I just wanted to assure you that I'm aware of the
problem. Senator Gates -- Secretary Gates, at one point, basically said he
didn't know how many contractors he had at the Defense Dept. It is a large
number. Frankly, it's too large and we need to do what we can to reduce
it.
Senator Bernie Sanders: I appreciate that answer. Last question I
would ask, Mr. Chairman, my office has gotten involved a little bit in terms of
fraud. You've got a huge budget, you're dealing with thousands and thousands of
defense contractors, etc. My understanding is that the top three defense
contractors, that's Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman paid over a billion
in fines over this ten year period to settle fraud allegations. That's just the
top three. There's massive amounts of fraud going on in terms of defense
contractors dealing with the DoD. Are we moving aggressively to try to address
that issue?
Secretary Leon Panetta: That is part of our effort to, uh, -- Two
ways. One, to be able to go after those kinds of fraudulent activities in the
various contracts that we have to try to achieve savings there, but, in addition
to that, the auditing -- I mean, we're a department that still cannot audit all
of our books. That's crazy.
Senator Bernie Sanders: It is crazy.
Secretary Leon Panetta: We need to do that and --
Senator Bernie Sanders: I would just say, and I thank you (Chair
Conrad) for raising that point. We hear, you know, people talking about 'we need
more money,' and what you have just told us is we don't even know what we're
spending and how we're spending it.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Well, we don't have audit ability and
that's something, frankly, we owe the taxpayers.
Senator Bernie Sanders: I would think so. My last
--
Chair Conrad: No. We've got to stop there because we're a minute
over and [. . .]
Conrad blathered on some more while claiming time was short. Let's wrap up
the US Congress by noting this from Senator Murray's office:
ose with this from Senator Patty Murray's office -- Murray is the Chair of
the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee:
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES:
Contact: Murray Press
Office
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
(202) 224-2834
TOMORROW: VETERANS: Murray to Hold Hearing to Discuss
FY 2013 Budget for Veterans' Programs
(Washington, D.C.) – On Wednesday, February 29th, U.S.
Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will
hold a hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget for veterans' programs. The
Committee will hear from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and
representatives of several veterans service organizations. The Senator will ask
Secretary Shinseki about the impact of sequestration on VA services, funding for
construction and maintenance of VA facilities, and efforts to combat the claims
backlog. She will also address VA's ongoing challenges in combating long wait
times for mental health care as the number of veterans seeking that care
continues to rise.
WHO:
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee
WHAT: Hearing to discuss
FY 2013 budget
WHEN: Wednesday,
February 29, 2012
10:00 AM ET
WHERE: Russell Senate Office
Building
Room 418
Washington, D.C.
###
Turning to Iraq, Alsumaria TV reports
that the Daughters of Iraq are threatening to stage a sit-in with their 300 plus
membership over having not received payment for at least two months. DOI is the
female counterpart to the Sons Of Iraq ("Awakenings," Sahwa). Their need become
more apparent with the emergence of female suicide bombers. On the subject of
Sahwa, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports Sahwa leader
Rasool Khalaf Halbousi was killed by a Falluja roadside bombing which also left
one of his bodyguards injured and that 4 members of the same family ("young
men") were all shot dead in Baghdad's Sadr City section, that 1 "juvenile
detention center worker" was shot dead in Baghdad and 2 Baghdad roadside
bombings claimed 1 life and left eight more people injured. In addition, Aswat al-Iraq reports that a Mosul
bombing targeting prison guards patrol of Badosh prison claimed the life of 1
guard and left three more injured. 8 and 11
No one bought them armored vehicles. As we noted yesterday and over the
weekend, the Iraqi Parliament's decision to spend over $50 million on 350
armored vehicles for members of Parliament has become a huge issue in Iraq. (We
noted that, of course the New York Times hasn't had time to note that. They're
too busy glorifying dictators.) Al
Mada reports that despite a 222 vote in favor of the purchase
(Iraq has 325 members of Parliament -- many of whom don't attend sessions), the
Parliament is now furiously attempting to walk it back as a result of Iraqi
anger. As the Cabinet discussed the 2012 budget yesterday, Hussain
al-Shahristani, the Deputy Prime Minister for Energy, declared that they should
veto the armored cars aspect of the bduget and return it to the Parliament. Aswat al-Iraq quotes MP Najiba
Najeeb stating that the presidency might be able to axe the armored vehicle
proposal. Al Sabaah cites an unnamed legal
expert who says the Cabinet can vote for the budget or against it but cannot
modify it as State of Law is claiming. Despite that analysis, Aswat al-Iraq notes, "The Iraqi Cabinet
will make some amendments to the 2012 general budget, which was adopted by the
Parliament, to preserve constitutional procedures, government spokesman Ali
al-Dabbagh announced today." Alsumaria TV notes
that Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi states that all the blocs in Parliament voted in
favor of the armored cars. Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan
(Wall St. Journal)
explain: Anger over what
Iraqis are referring to as the scandal of the musafahat—"the armored objects" --
is building up in teahouses, newspaper columns, blogs and social-media websites.
Even the country's most revered
religious authority has weighed in on the matter. In a sermon on Friday, a
senior representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most
senior Shiite cleric, lambasted what he described as politicians' lopsided
priorities.The representative, Ahmed
al-Safi, suggested parliamentarians consider donating the $50 million allocated
for armored vehicles toward provision of clean drinking water for some of the
hundreds of villages currently lacking it. The sermons usually reflect the views
of the reclusive Mr. Sistani.AFP provides a cross section of
Iraqi voices decrying the proposed purchase such as journalist Wassan
al-Shimmari ("They live in secure areas inside, or even outside, the Green Zone.
Each one of them has a full team of bodyguards so there is no need to have other
privileges.") and commentator Tariq al-Mammuri ("The subject of buying armoured
cars was approved quickly, while other laws are taking a long time, which shows
that MPs prioritise their own benefits over the needs of the people.").
The political crisis continues in Iraq and things continue to worsen.
Sunday, Joel Brinkley explored many of the emerging realities -- as well as
possible outcomes -- in " Iraq outlook looks dim after
pullout" ( POLITICO).
Excerpt.
After Bush negotiated an end to the
U.S. military presence in Iraq near the end of his term in 2008, his politicians
and generals began warning of three large potential problems: growing Iranian
influence in the Iraqi state, increasing sectarian violence and the possibility
that Al Qaeda in Iraq "will continue to grow in capacity," as Gen. Lloyd J.
Austin III, who commanded U.S. forces there, put it during a news conference
last fall.
In interviews, several
former officials and experts acknowledged that most, if not all, of that has
already happened, in just the few weeks since the last American troops left.
Last week, for example, Iran agreed to increase the electric power it supplies
to Iraq by as much as 30 percent.
Some
Sunni leaders, under sometimes lethal pressure from the Shiite-controlled
government, have begun talking about breaking away from Baghdad and creating
their own state. That has started talk of a possible civil war. And in the past
week alone, about 70 people have died in bombings and other
attacks.
But no one seemed to
anticipate what is arguably the biggest problem: The nation seems to be
relapsing rapidly into brutal dictatorship.
"There's an incredible consolidation of power in the
executive," said Jason Gluck of the United States Institute of Peace. During the
war, he worked in Iraq for the National Democratic Institute, among other
agencies. "The parliament has been rendered extremely feeble, with little
ability to stand up to the executive."
Brinkley covered the inability of US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey to be
able to meet face-to-face with Nouri al-Maliki (he's more often rebuffed) and
other issues including the deliberate attempts by Nouri's underlings to keep the
US Embassy from receiving their food supplies. Brinkley covered all of this and
it was alarming. Today, Tim Arango (New York Times) wrote a silly and embarrassing 'memo' treating this trend
as "It's great for Nouri!" Nouri al-Maliki is not Iraq. He's the current
leader. Someday the paper will be doing an obit on him -- maybe sooner than he
expects considering the path he's chosen -- because Nouri will go. The Iraqi
people will remain. And it's the Iraqi people that Tim Arango disregards (yet
again) in his rush to glorify the latest (authoritarian) moves by Nouri.
One thing people rarely bring up when discussing US soft power with regards
to Iraq is Chapter VII. Possibly because it's a forbidden topic in the US media
to judge by the repeated efforts to ignore it. Iraq wants out of Chapter VII.
The US could keep it there for some time. Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Iraqi
Parliamentary Foreign Relations Commission today called the international
community to play greater role in removing Iraq from UN Security Council's
Chapter VII and adopting a clear stand to support its legitimate issues,
according to a statement."
Lastly, dropping back to the US, KCBD reports the
family of Major Troy Gilbert has learned that the Pentagon will "resume" their
search for Gilbert who died in Iraq while using his plane to provide cover for
US soldiers on the ground who were under attack. When his plane crashed,
fighters took Gilbert's body from the plane and a year later, in 2007, his body
showed up as a prop in a propaganda video. Ariel Walden (KFYO)
reports that his parents received the news last Friday. Jim Douglas (WFAA) offers a video
report on the news, speaking with the parents, widow Ginger Gilbert
Ravella and government officials. Excerpt. Jim Douglas: The last time we saw Kaye Gilbert she was
crying because the government told her that her son's case was closed, that no
one would look for the remains of Major Troy Gilbert in
Iraq.Kaye Gilbert: Please, please
help us get him home.Jim Douglas:
Now they will. Kaye Gilbert: You
cry when you're sad and you cry when you're happy. But today is a happy, happy
day.Jim Douglas: Air Force and
MIA officials told the Gilbert's their son's case is so extraordinary that an
Undersecretary of Defense to give it special consideration. The first time
that's ever been done.
| 
