Saturday, March 24, 2012

Smash and other things

Jeff Dodge (Buddy TV) reports that NBC renewed Smash for a second season.


Patricia Sheridan (Scripps Howard Service) interviews one of the stars of Smash, Anjelica Huston:

 Q You felt like you had no choice but to be in the family business. 


 A Yes, I did feel that way. I was kind of reluctant to accept what I thought were handouts, you know, charity because I was a Huston. I wanted to earn my own way, do it my way. 


 Q Now that you are writing your memoirs, does it feel as you look back that you've had multiple lifetimes? 


A Very much so. At least nine. 




Anjelica Huston is both an immense talent and a very nice person.  I'm glad her show is a hit (and willing to check it out for her).  I am sure her book will be a highly enjoyable read.

Speaking of stories, C.I. told one on me.  Which is more than fine.  But in terms of when United for Peace and Justice was using the Iraq Body Count number, I did complain loudly offline because the over one million figure had already been established by the study The Lancet published.  I was not the only one working on the issue and C.I. was probably more valuable on it than I was.  I did have several friends with UPFJ (notice the past tense? that's not an accident)).  I did threaten, I did bully.  Only after pleading didn't work.  There was never an excuse for them to have used the IBC figures after The Lancet study.

Now I will tell a story on C.I.  Sunny told me about an e-mail asking why C.I. hates journalists?

C.I. doesn't hate journalists.  She's been very vocal this week about feeling the journalism programs at universities are jokes (she calls them general study mills with "journalism" stamped on the degrees).  But that's because they act like idiots.

Let's deal with the torture thing first.  Yesterday AFP did a stupid article -- highly ignorant -- on what the government of Iraq and the court's spokesperson were saying in response to what Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi charged (that they tortured his bodyguard to death).  Check out yesterday's snapshot, not just to see C.I. call out AFP's ignorant article.  Check it also to see how C.I. does it.  The "HOW" is very important.  The points she made yesterday?  Check out today's Human Rights Watch release demanding an investigation into the death.  C.I. is f**king brilliant.  She always has been.

It's partly her huge knowledge base.  She knows the law, she knows this, she knows that.  Her memory is beyond photographic.  But there's this thing, this state, she enters into when she's defending someone and it's grace-like and it's amazing and it can be borderline psychic.  I'm not joking.

So she's not going to be clapping along with the press when it's not doing it's job.  She's really not going to be impressed with mere competency either.

But in terms of the press, you have to remember that she didn't want to do journalism.  Her family wanted her too.  She was gifted at it and did it up through high school but she wasn't going to do it in college.  They announced before the semester started, right before, that they'd only cover the cost if she majored in journalism.  Her response?  That she'd cover her own college.

She did too.  She first figured out which jewelry she could sell and what the best price she could get.  She started that, she began looking into any scholarships still available.  There were a limited number.  Two were in music.  C.I. was playing piano shortly after she could stand (that's not a joke, when her mother was alive, she'd tell you as soon as C.I. started walking, she'd head straight for the music room and if she made it there, she'd go straight to the piano.)  At the age of five, she began taking lessons and did so all the way through high school.  She had no interest in studying it in college.  But there was a scholarship so she went out for it and got it.  The other music scholarship was voice and she nailed that as well.  That covered tuitition and I believe half of the additional costs.  She immediately found work -- and she'd never worked before -- and ended up with not one, not two but often three jobs.


She did all that to avoid being a journalism major.  So when she gets in her remarks about the press, take that into account.  Also take into account that a number of her very good friends have been badly burned by the press.  C.I.'s never been because she keeps a wall up.  She'll charm an interviewer but never mistake it for a friendship.  She does have many friends who are reporters and columnists.  She generally respects their work.  She respects journalism in the abstract.  But she has no use for the nonsense that so many waste our days with.

She also has the attitude that if she can do something, everybody else should be able to.  That's because she's never appreciated how talented she is.  So she has little patience for the bulls**t that is so much of the press.

She's also someone who can feel tremendous guilt.  She's given a great deal of money to our college over the years.  I'm an alumni and I do donate for various things but I mean she gives a lot more than I do and she's already giving a ton on children's charities.

I asked her about 15 years ago, when there was some campus project and I discovered she'd donate over 75% of the funding.  Do you know why?

Because of those scholarships the first semester of college.  She'd get several academic ones in the second semester and on through college.  She feels no guilt there.  But she feels tremendous guilt that, via piano and voice, she snagged two scholarships that other people might have needed.  She took the music courses required for those scholarships, but she didn't major in music and she never planned to.  So all these years, she's given and given to our old campus for that reason, to make up for taking two scholarships.

When she turned 21, her trust fund kicked in and she dropped all scholarships.

With the academic scholarships -- which she dropped when her trust fund kicked in -- no guilt because it was based on GPA.  But the music ones were "auditions" and she'll insist that something other than skill got her the scholarships.

Beauty?  She's beautiful but she has no idea.  That's not an act.  She was raised not to focus on her looks.  She'll put it down to either charming her way into the scholarship (which she'll also call "manipulation" -- hence, the guilt) or sex appeal depending on her mood that day.  (She is sexy and she has no problem admitting that but she'll tell you that sexy doesn't have to do with good looks.)  (She'll also allude to being kidnapped by the crazy when she was a little girl and say that those who faced sexual abuse learn to respond sexually -- intentionally or not -- and that's where that comes from.)

So nah-nah-nah, I wrote about her.  (It didn't bother me that she wrote about me and, in the middle of dictating the snapshot, she waived me over to make sure it was okay.  It was fine. But I don't think that I deserve that much credit.)


 "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, March 23, 2012. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Human Rights Watch calls for an investigation into whether or not someone was tortured to death, security sources say the targeting of Emo youths in Iraq is back on after the Arab Summit and that this time the ones targeted will be Iraqi girls and young women, even with the GAO pointing to problems the Pentagon denies there are any, and more.
There is a success story in Iraq. You'd think the White House desperate for someone to paint the illegal war as a success would have seized upon it but, even though Jane Arraf reported on it for Al Jazeera last weekend, the White House and other Operation Happy Talkers somehow missed it. This is a transcript to Arraf's video report:
Jane Arraf: It's a small step pronouncing a word but for parents and children, it speaks volumes. Without this institute, some of these children wouldn't even be making eye contact. Eleven years ago, there were no schools for autistic children, so one of the parents started her own. Nibras Sadoun was doing field research in special education when she adopted an autistic child rejected by his mother.
Nibras Sadoun: There are a lot of obstacles in the country and there were huge needs as well. So we tried to pull together the efforts of the founders, specialists and parents to establish a solid base that can serve this segment of society.
Jane Arraf: The Al Rahman Institute, named after her son, has since grown into six centers around the country -- all without Iraqi government funding. The latest just opened in Baghdad. Iraq's education ministry doesn't have any programs for autistic children. It considers them slow learners. Here in the middle of Baghdad, this is a safe place for children, a refuge. But there are only a few dozen children who have been lucky enough to come here and hundreds on the waiting list. Autism is so widely misunderstood here that a lot of children like this spend their entire lives locked up at home. Mariam has been here for a year. She's five-and-a-half but, before she came, she couldn't say "Mama" or ask for water. Her father says her progress is basic. But having somewhere to bring her during the day is a lifesaver.
Nizer Mustapha Hussein:She's a very active child and she plays with everything. Thank God, we found this place. Her mother can't cope with her at home because she can't control her.
Jane Arraf: The children have varying degrees of autism, a lot have other neurolgical or developmental problems as well. Autistic children have trouble communicating or interacting with others. At school, they teach them basic skills. Their biggest problem is lack of qualified staff. Dealing with autistic children takes training and dedication and the determination to find a place for children who don't easily fit in the world around them.
A small number of autistic children and their families can say their lives have improved. Of course, this improvement did not result from any US military project or US State Dept project and didn't result from Prime Minister and All Around Thug Nouri al-Maliki sliding over any dollars from the billions he sits on. As is so often the case with autism around the world, improvements came as a result of families of those effected doing more than their part.
The Autism Support Network highlights a report Lara Logan did for CBS News in 2008 on autism in Iraq. In the report, Logan observes, "The problem for autistic children in Iraq is that almost nothing is known about this condition. Incredibly, the only doctor who did treat it, who founded this center in the name of his own autistic son, has fled the country. He left behind these social workers who try their best to help but even they haven't been paid in four months." Click here for the CBS report with text and video. However, do not e-mail me and say, "C.I., you're wrong about the report. It aired on February 11, 2009." I have no idea what the problem with CBS and dates is this week. We noted Nancy Pelosi's "off the table" 2006 interview on 60 Minutes earlier this week and didn't link to 60 Minutes. Why? You click on that 2006 60 Minutes report and you've got a 2009 date. I didn't want the e-mails. That interview was well covered in real time (we linked to the World Can't Wait commentary the day after the interview aired). Autism is not usually well covered. So we're linking to CBS. But it aired in 2008. If you doubt it, click here, it's the video at YouTube, uploaded by CBS News on August 10, 2008. If you need further convincing, drop back to the August 12, 2008 snapshot when we first noted Lara Logan's report.
Silence on the improvement for the small number of autistic children able to attend one of the six centers may have also been ignored by the White House due to the fact that the rate of autism in Iraq may be influenced by the various chemicals and weapons and pollutants and toxins the US goverment introduced via many methods of delivery (including burn pits). Last week, Cindy Sheehan wrote about being in Stockholm with the Iraq Solidarity Group to observe the anniversary of the invasion and speaking with an Iraqi doctor who went over a number of stastics:
Two million dead during the sanction years; 1.5 milliion dead after 2003; incidences of leukemia in children in Fallujah and Basra skyrocketing by a factor of ten times normal; clean water and electricity are still in short supply; and the US occupiers do not work for the people of Iraq.
[. . .]
Of course we know that the US used depleted uranium coated weapons in Iraq and the region is now poisoned by the radioactive waste from DU for 4.5 billion years --- that is one of the reasons that incidences of leukemia are on the rise.
One woman who does activism to ban all nuclear weapons, including DU, said that now in Iraq, a woman's first question after giving birth is not: "Is it a boy or a girl," but, "Is it normal?"
No wonder the White House decided to skip the topic of Iraqi children. For more coverage of the damage to the environment and its effects on the Iraqi people, you can refer to:
"Normal" doesn't begin to describe the ongoing political crisis in Iraq or Nouri's attempts to have Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrested (he claims al-Hashemi is a terrorist) which are seen as part of the same political crisis and part of Nouri's attempt to lash out at political rivals. (Tareq al-Hashemi is a member of Iraqiya which came in first in the March 2010 elections while Nouri's State of Law came in second.) al-Hashemi was in the KRG when Nouri issued the warrant and he has remained in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region as a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. The KRG has not assisted Nouri in his witch hunt and Nouri has responded by ordering the arrests of people working for al-Hashmi. Amer Sarbut Zeidan al-Batawi was one such pe
Wednesday, Tareq al-Hashemi charged that his bodyguard had been tortured to death. We covered these issue in yesterday's snapshot. Today Human Rights Watch is calling for an investigation into the death:
(Beirut) – Iraqi authorities should order a criminal investigation into allegations that security forces tortured to death a bodyguard of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, Human Rights Watch said today.

Iraqi authorities released Amir Sarbut Zaidan al-Batawi's body to his family on March 20, 2012, about three months after arresting him for terrorism. His family told Human Rights Watch that his body displayed signs of torture, including in several sensitive areas. Photographs taken by the family and seen by Human Rights Watch show what appear to be a burn mark and wounds on various parts of his body.

"The statements we heard and photos we saw indicate that Iraqi security officers may have tortured Amir Sarbut Zaidan al-Batawi to death while he was in their custody," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "It's essential for the Iraqi government to investigate his death and report publicly what they find."

The family said that al-Batawi's death certificate listed no cause of death. They said that before his arrest, the 33-year-old married father of three was in excellent health.

"I could barely recognize him," a close relative told Human Rights Watch on March 22. "There were horrible marks and signs of torture all over his body. He had lost about 17 kilos [37.5 pounds] from the day they arrested him."

Iraqi authorities have denied the torture allegations. On March 22, Lt. Gen. Hassan al-Baydhani, chief of staff of Baghdad's security command center and a judicial spokesman, said al-Batawi died of kidney failure and other conditions after refusing treatment. When asked by reporters about the photographic evidence that al-Batawi had been tortured, Baydhani replied, "It is easy for Photoshop to show anything," referring to a digital photo-editing software.

As the United States was pulling its last remaining troops from Iraq in December 2011, Iraqi authorities issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi on charges he was running death squads. Al-Hashemi has taken refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan and refused to return to Baghdad, saying he cannot receive a fair trial. Kurdistan Regional Government authorities have so far declined to hand him over.

An unknown number of other members of al- Hashemi's security and office staff have been arrested since late December and are also in custody, including two women. On March 22, al-Hashemi told Human Rights Watch, "I have made repeated requests to the government to find out who else in my staff has been arrested and where they are being held, but they have not responded."

Human Rights Watch called on the Iraqi government to release the names of all those detained and the charges against them, and to ensure that they have access to lawyers and medical care.
Today Al Mada reports that security sources are stating that young Iraqi women and girls are about to be targeted by the militias in part of the ongoing attacks on Iraqi youths thought to be Emo and/or gay. One source stated that the militias have pulled back and 'softened' their approach recently but only due to the fact that the Arab League Summit is approaching. To avoid embarrassing Nouri, they militia's basically about to take a vacation and plans to return immediately after the summit at which point they will "hunt down girls" and security sources are also stating that some security forces may be assisting the militias in these upcoming actions. If you're new to this topic, Scott Lang's column for the Guardian provides a strong overview of what's taking place:
A new killing campaign is convulsing Iraq. The express targets are "emos", short for "emotional": a western-derived identity, teenagers adopting a pose of vulnerability, along with tight clothes and skewed hairdos and body piercing. Starting last year, mosques and the media both began raising the alarm about youthful immorality, calling the emos deviants and devil worshippers. In early February, somebody began killing people. The net was wide, definitions inexact. Men who seemed effeminate, girls with tattoos or peculiar jewellery, boys with long hair, could all be swept up. The killers like to smash their victims' heads with concrete blocks.
There is no way to tell how many have died: estimates range from a few dozen to more than 100. Nor is it clear who is responsible. Many of the killings happened in east Baghdad, stronghold of Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army and Asaib Ahl al-Haq (the League of the Righteous). Neither, though, has claimed responsibility. Iraq's brutal interior ministry issued two statements in February. The first announced official approval to "eliminate" the "satanists". The second, on 29 February, proclaimed a "campaign" to start with a crackdown on stores selling emo fashion. The loaded language suggests, at a minimum, that the ministry incited violence. It's highly possible that some police, in a force riddled with militia members, participated in the murders.
It's logical to compare this to the militia campaign against homosexual conduct in 2009, which I documented for Human Rights Watch. Hundreds of men lost their lives then. Gay-identified men have been caught up in these killings as well, and Baghdad's LGBT community is rife with fear. Yet there are differences. The current killings target women as well as men, and children are the preferred victims. It's not quite true to say, as some press reports have suggested, that "emo" is just a synonym for "gay" in Iraq. Rather, immorality, western influence, decadence and blasphemy have come together in a loosely defined, poorly aligned complex of associations: and emo fashion and "sexual perversion" are part of the mix.
Turning to 'security' in 'free' Iraq.  Thank goodness foreign troops are out is the public pose of Nouri.  But it appears that privately he's attempting to get foreign military back into Iraq. 
The Sun Daily notes, "Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi today said Malaysia is prepared to sen[d] a special peacekeeping team on a humanitarian mission to Iraq if the costs of operation were to be sponsored by other countries." The Defense Minister is quoted stating, "There's a request for Malaysia to sen[d] a team to Iraq and one particular country has also agreed to bear the costs of operation, but since the country has yet to keep its promise, we cannot send the team to Iraq." Meanwhile Reuters notes a Kirkuk prison break that has 19 prisoners on the loose.

Still on security news, KUNA reports, "All necessary security precautions have been taken in preparation for upcoming Arab summit due to be hosted by Baghdad in the end of this month, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior announced on Friday." The Arab League Summit is set to take place next week in Baghdad. Alsumaria TV notes the announcement as well and -- a press release from the Ministry of Interior -- and that the release claims that terrorists are attempting to create an atmosphere of hysteria. An atmosphere of hysteria? Like Nouri's comments reported by Al Rafidayn that Tuesday's attacks was carried out by terrorist including security officers inside the Iraqi security forces? Citing an unnamed security source, Al Mada reports that Nouri has ordered the closure of at least one bridge and that Baghdad barrier walls are going back up. It's already been reported that Baghdad's about to impose a seven-day 'holiday' and that Bahgdad International Airport will be closed to commercial flights. Salam Faraj and Abdul Jabbar (AFP) observe, "The Iraqi capital's already gnarling traffic has all but ground to a halt, and the government has declared a week of holidays on the days surrounding the March 27-29 summit to encourage people to stay at home." Iraq's a country already plagued with high unemployment and rocketing inflation. Now Faraj and Jabbar report that the prices in Baghdad markets are soaring due to transportation issues as a result of the barriers and checkpoints that have been going up.

On the topic of violence, Charles Tripp (Open Democracy) offers:


Violence in Iraq has now become a central part of the practice of power, both by the government and by certain non-governmental agencies, some of them bitterly opposed to, but others enmeshed in the webs of government practice. For the government of Iraq under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the ever unfinished project of re-establishing the power and thus, he hopes, the authority of the central state has often taken a violent form. This has been clear ever since the campaigns in 2008 that saw a reconstituted, if not always very effective, Iraqi army reconquer a number of Iraq's provinces, with campaigns in the south in Basra, the east of Baghdad, the north in Mosul and the north-east in Diyala.
At the time and in the context of the country's emergence from a bloody civil war, these campaigns were strongly supported by the US and others who saw this precisely as a token of the 'resolve' and the 'seriousness' of the fragile Iraqi government. The fact that al-Maliki had attached to his personal command perhaps the most effective and ruthless of the units of the reconstituted Iraqi armed forces, the Baghdad Brigade, was believed to assist the state-creating project. Equally, the close and some might say politically unhealthy interest that al-Maliki took in officers' careers, promotions and transfers within the Iraqi armed forces through his own Office of the Commander in Chief was regarded as merely fitting if he wanted 'to get the job done'.
The problem, as many Iraqis began to discover, lay in what else was coming into being as a consequence. In public, the military presence was meant to symbolise al-Maliki's grip on power and his capacity to restore order, as his coalition 'The State of Law' promised. It was highly visible and clearly aimed at demonstrating both that the withdrawal of the US forces in 2010/2011 would not leave Iraq defenceless, and that the government was in full control. The effect, however, in the words of one Iraqi was that 'we live as under an army of occupation'. Given the continuing threat of violence from insurgents of one kind and another, this may have been reassuring for some. However, it also seemed to bring with it the idea that any kind of open or public opposition could and should be met with force. Most notoriously, this was evident in the ferocious response in 2011 to any Iraqis who dared to demonstrate during 2011 in the spirit of the 'Arab Spring'. Thus, whether in Tahrir Square in Baghdad, or in Basra, Mosul or in the Kurdish region in Sulaimaniyya, peaceful protestors were killed, abused and beaten up on the orders of authorities for which violence has become the default response to opposition.



And the political crisis continues in 'free' Iraq. Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) notes the various elements of the crisis beginning with Nouri's second term as prime minister and then emphasizes the speech KRG President Massoud Barzani gave this week (Tuesday):


Barzani also said that Baghdad had asked the Kurdish administration to let Al-Hashemi leave Iraq in order to avoid being put on trial, something which amounted to accusing Al-Maliki's government of hypocrisy.
"Our response was that we do not work as [people] smugglers and we won't do it," Barzani told a gathering of his Kurdistan Democratic Party in Erbil, the Kurdish provincial capital, last Thursday.
Barzani also lambasted the Baghdad government over other long-running disputes, such as oil and power-sharing with the central government. He renewed criticisms of Al-Maliki's authoritarian style of government and of his alleged attempts to marginalise the Kurds and Sunnis.
"Some in Baghdad believe they are the rulers of Iraq and want to work unilaterally," he said. "They are losers who have failed to give Iraq anything, unlike what we have done for our people in Kurdistan, and they want us to be like them," Barzani said, echoing criticisms by many Iraqis that al-Maliki's government has failed to bring security and restore basic services to Iraq some seven years after assuming power.

Speaking in the region's capital of Arbil on Tuesday, Barzani said the partnership that had built the national unity government in the country is now completely non-existent and has become meaningless. Barzani stated that if the political deadlocks remained the KRG parliament would declare independence for the Kurdish region. He also said that the oil-rich Kirkuk had to be incorporated into a future independent Kurdistan.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki kept his job only with Kurdish support after his party fell short of a majority in the 2010 parliamentary elections.
Covering Barzani and Nouri's conflict, Turkish Weekly emphasizes one section of Barzani's speech:

"There is an attempt to establish a one million-strong army whose loyalty is only to a single person," Barzani said in the speech in Arbil. He claimed that al-Maliki and the government were "waiting to get F-16 combat planes to examine its chances again with the Kurdish peshmerga [fighters]," referring to a government order for 36 warplanes from the United States. "Where in the world can the same person be the prime minister, the chief of staff of the armed forces, the minister of defense, the minister of interior, the chief of intelligence and the head of the national security council?" he asked.
Jasim Alsabawi (Rudaw) notes attacks on Barzani from various members of Nouri's circle.

"We strongly disagree with [Mr. Allawi's] characterization of our relationship with the government of Iraq and the role we have played to keep the Iraqi political process on track." Who said that?  Head liar for the State Dept, Victoria Nuland and Ben Birnbaum (Washington Times) quotes her latest lies as he reports on Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi:


Mr. Allawi headed the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya bloc in Iraq's 2010 elections. The bloc won two more seats than Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law alliance, but Mr. al-Maliki was able to form a government under a 2011 power-sharing deal.
That deal, which gave several ministries to Iraqiya, was supposed to have given Mr. Allawi control of a new strategic policy council, but the former premier declined the post when Mr. al-Maliki refused to cede it much authority despite what he called U.S. guarantees.
"The policymakers promised to support this, but ultimately and unfortunately, none of this has happened, and the United States forgot about this power-sharing completely," Mr. Allawi said. "I think the United States deliberately is taking Iraq out of the screen because there is a gross failure in Iraq."
Monday and Tuesday, we noted that various left and 'left' programs and magazines were ignoring the 9th anniversary (Monday was the anniversary). An e-mail came in about Uprising Radio. Despite the fact that its segment aired on Wednesday and despite Sonali Kohlhatkar's embarrassing stab in the back of Aghan women to show her love for Barack Obama (we addressed this community wide in 2009 including in an all woman roundtable featuring all women who do community sites as well as Gina and Krista who started and do the first community newletter the gina & krista roundrobin), I did attempt to listen. While I'm sure Ann Wright had something of value to say and would guess that Kevin Zeese did as well, I can't stomach Sonali's garbage. I can't stomach her ignorance, I can't stomach her 'hugs for empire' and I can't stomach her damn cowardly soul.  For example, to say that 100,000 Iraqis have died in the Iraq War was probably 'brave' prior to the October 2006 publication of Lancet Study which found over a million had died. To say it today on a left outlet, on Pacifica Radio, is to be a damn liar. I'm not in the mood for her garbage. We've fought this fight before, we shouldn't have to fight it again. (For those late to the party, United for Peace & Justice, when it was still pretending to care about ending wars, was pimping lower numbers after the study was published by the Lancet. Elaine and I called it out repeatedly -- and not just here -- and Elaine laid down the damn law -- offline -- and got UFPJ to change the number. I'm not in the mood to refight battles that were already won because Sonali wants to be the cheap trash of empire. Her show gets pulled from the permalinks tonight when I'm by a computer. -- I dictate the snapshots over the phone. And anyone with UPFJ who wants to play and pretend that Elaine didn't force UPFJ to change their numbers should know that I'm more than happy to make private e-mails public on this topic. Elaine did it, she deserved applause for it in real time and she never said a word -- she did do a post at her site noting the number was changed but never noting all she had done -- online and especially offline -- to force that change.)
The US Goverment of Accountability Office wrote to Congressional Committees:
According to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Indianapolis (DFA-IN), fiscal year 2010 active Army military payroll totaled $46.1 billion. For years, we and others have reported continuing deficiencies with Department of the Army military paryoll processes and controls. In November 2003, we reported that weaknesses in processes and controls resulted in over -- and underpayments to mobilized Army National Guard personnel. In April 2006, we reported that pay problems rooted in complex, cumbersome processes used to pay Army soldiers from initial mobilization through active duty deployment to demobilization resulted in military debt to battle-injured soldiers. In June 2009, we reported that the Army did not have effective controls for processing and accounting for military personnel federal payroll taxes because of weaknesses in its procedures and controls for assuring accurate and timely documentation of transactions. In July 2011, the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General reported that the Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) made potentially invalid active duty military payroll payments of $4.2 million from January 2005 through December 2009 for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
These reported continuing deficiencies in Army payroll processes and controls have called into question the exten to which the Army's military payroll transactions are valid and accurate and whether the Army's military payroll as a whole is auditable. The Army's military pay is material to all of the Army's financial statements and comprises about 20 percent of the Army's $233.8 billion in reported fiscal year 2010 net outlays. Accordingly, Army active duty military payroll is significant to both Army and DOD efforts to meet DOD's 2014 Statement of Budgetary Resources and audit readiness goal.
That's from the cover letter to the GAO's report, released yesterday, entitled [PDF format warning] "DOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: The Army Faces Significant Challenges in Achieving Audit Readiness for Its Military Pay." These issues were the subject of a joint-hearing yesterday of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial Management (Chair is US House Rep Todd Platts) and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Financial Management Committee (Chair is Senator Thomas Carper). Appearing before the two Subcommittees were the Army Reserve's LTC Kirk Zecchini, the GAO's Asif Khan, the Army's Director of Accountability and Audit Readiness James Watkins, the Army's Director of Technology and Business Architecture Integration Jeanne Brooks and Aaron Gillison, the Deputy Director of Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis.
Yesterday's snapshot covered LTC Kirk Zecchini's testimony which included being stationed in Afghanistan and going without a month-and-a-half's pay because of some auditing error and how he does have a family to support and had to dip into savings to cover that period of time (not to mention the stress this causes -- he noted that these sort of periods of no pay are so common you can't walk through the dining halls without hearing someone discussing how it has just happened to them). We're going to briefly note the an exchange from the second panel which really sums up the entire second panel.
US House Rep Gerry Connolly: I guess one of the things I would just say to the panel is, it seems to me, progress achieved notwithstanding, we need to move from sort of the administrative clutter to the human level. No soldier on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else serving in uniform ought to -- on top of everything else -- be worried about whether the spouse and kids back home can pay the bills. That ought to be our goal, bottom line. 'That part, we got your back. Don't worry about anything but the mission, we've got the rest of it.' And it's very difficult to hear testimony as we did this morning from LTC Zecchini that in the middle of Afghanistan, on the warfront, he's worrying about trying to pay the bills back home and so's his spouse, so are the kids. That's a very human concern, a very legitimate one. We may never get to perfection. It's a big, complex system with lots of change orders. Bigger than any private sector enterprise. I understand. But that ought to be our goal. It's a human goal. We need to be seized with a mission. This isn't about numbers. This is about men and women and their lives. And I just -- I say that as somebody who's managed a big enterprise. If that's our mentality, we will fix this problem. And I commend it to you. I know that you are committed but we need to redouble that commitment so that we never have that kind of testimony again and LTC Zecchni and his colleagues never have to worry about that again. Mr. Watkins, in your outstanding testimony, you indicated that you were pretty confident we were going to meet the deadlines we've set four ourselves to finally have a certifiable audit like most federal agencies. The Pentagon's not like most federal agencies so we understand the complications. On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that we will in fact meet that deadline finally?
James Watkins: Representative Connelly, I'm very confident. I'd rate it about 8.
US House Rep Gerry Connelly: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kahn, your testimony, if I understood you correctly was the GAO found appreciable progress had been made on the fronts we're talking about. Is that correct?
Asif Kahn: Some progress has been made but there's a lot more work that needs to be done to meet the 2014 deadline.
US House Rep Gerry Connelly: That's on the audit?
Asif Kahn: Correct.
US House Rep Gerry Connelly: What about on the issue of accurate payroll?
Asif Kahn: That continues to be a problem.
US House Rep Gerry Connelly: Statistically how much of a problem is it from the GAO's point of view? The Chairman [Platts] was talking about 250 but obviously the problem has to be bigger than that, given the size of our armed forces.
Asif Kahn: Well let me just pick up from where you left. Our sample of 250 was a statistical sample. That means the results could be generalized or extrapolated over --
US House Rep Gerry Connelly: And if we extrapolate, what would we say?
Asif Kahn: We could not say anything on the accuracy or the validity of Army's active-duty pay for Fiscal Year 2010.
US House Rep Gerry Connelly: But are there metrics we can -- I mean, if we don't have some metrics for these folks to measure against and to gauge progress than it remains anecdotal. Based on that statistical sample, what percentage of active-duty military do we feel suffer from mistakes in their payroll.
Asif Kahn: I mean that -- based on that, that will be very difficult to say because -- I mean getting two payroll records out of 250 doesn't really say much.
US House Rep Gerry Connelly explained that without some sort of basic estimate, it was impossible to know if this is a problem that's improving or if it's getting worse. His goal is to reduce it to zero. But he explained he has no idea where the problem stood without some basic numbers that the Congress could work with. Chair Todd Platts echoed him on that and also noted without a basic number they not only can't estimate how many people are being effected by this (not receiving pay in a timely fashion) but they also can't estimate how much "time and effort and money" it's taking the government to correct these problems when they arise.
Chair Thomas Carper followed by asking for some general reactions from the second panel. Khan was very clear about the problems. The Pentagon witnesses, by contrast, were optimistic and things were great, and, oh, we have figures, we do, we do, we do, we do. But Kahn was then asked what he thought about the responses and he was very clear that there was no documentation at present -- despite what Pentagon witnesses were saying. Kahn explained that the problem remains, "This is a real problem. The length of time it took to provide the documentation? It's not really going to enable an auditor to stay there and to give a valid audit opinion in a timely fashion. And the other one is the issue of supporting documentation. Regardless of the robustness of the system, the auditor will need access to the supporting documentation, the underlying records of the information which is maintained in the system. So those are the two points that need to be recognized. One is the timeliness and the other is the accuracy and the validty of the information in the system."
Chair Thomas Carper: I think in responding to the GAO's work, the Army's official letter to the GAO said -- and I'm going to quote it, "We appreciate your confirmation that no significant issues were identified in your review of the miltiary pay accounts for the Army." That's part of what it said. "We appreciate your confirmation that no significant issues were identified in your review of the military pay accounts for the Army." I think based on what we've heard from you and some from the Colonel [], it just seems like a bit of an odd comment based on your testimony. Do you believe, as the Army stated, that your audit showed no significant issues?
Asif Kahn: Our report has been very clear in highlighting the deficiencies in the Army's processes and systems. The deficiencies in the processes and systems really increase the risk of inaccurate payments -- just like I'd mentioned before. So that along with the timeliness -- with the timeliness of which information is presented, those are very significant issues -- both towards the accuracy and the validity of the information in the system and also to be able to get ready for an audit whether it's 2014 or 2017. So the issues tha we've highlighted, they're very significant.
And that is the second panel.  The auditors point to problems, the Pentagon thanks them for saying hello.  The Pentagon is in denial about the problems.  To even themselves?  Who knows but they obviously wanted to play dumb in public.  As long as they continue to do that, look for this to drag on forever and for more and more service members to suffer with wrongful pay and no pay.
at

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

I see his point

MJ Lee (POLITICO) reports:

Ron Paul said Tuesday he doesn’t want any Secret Service protection because it’s “a form a welfare.”
“It’s a form of welfare,” the presidential candidate told comedian Jay Leno Tuesday. “You know, you’re having the taxpayers pay to take care of somebody and I’m an ordinary citizen and I would think I should pay for my own protection and it costs, I think, more than $50,000 a day to protect those individuals. It’s a lot of money.”

I see his point.  I would go ahead and provide support (if it were up to me) but not all this crap.  I mean, the Obamas sent their 13-year-old daughter to Mexico.  Why is the Secret Service there?  To protect her?  Fine, when she's in DC.  But no 13-year-old needs to go traveling by herself especially when it means that the tax payer has to pay.

I would stop all Secret Service protection for those out of office.  I believe they all become millionaires now.  Bill Clinton and the Bushes should be able to pay for their own security.  The same with Barack when he leaves office.  This nonsense of them being protected for life?

Nope.  Not unless they're paying the bills themselves.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, March 21, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri believes if everything comes to a standstill in Baghdad then the Arab Summit can be a 'success,' Senator Patty Murray demands answers on Madigan Army Medical Center reversing 40% of PTSD diagnoses, the Congress hears from veterans groups, and more.
 
 
"Another concern I wanted to mention today and one I'm sure everyone in this room is concerned about is mental health," declared Senator Patty Murray this morning. "For service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA has now projected an increased demand of over 200% for mental health care by Fiscal Year 2020.  We have got to take a hard look at whether the department's proposed 5% budget increase is enough to meet the projected demand for mental health care.  Not every veteran will be effected by the invisible wounds of war  but when a veteran has the courage to stand up and ask for help the VA has to meet that need every single time.  They have to be there not only with timely access to care but the right type of care.  Challenges like PTSD or depression are natural responses to some of the most stressful events a person can experience and we must do everything we can to ensure those effected by these illnesses can get help, get better and get back to their lives."
 
  
She was speaking at the joint-hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  She is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member.  US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee and, while Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member, Rep Michael Michaud acted as the Ranking Member for the hearing.  Appearing before them were Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Tom Tarantino, the Military Order of the Purple Heart's William R. Hutton, the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs' David Fletcher, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association's H. Gene. Overstreet, the Retired Enlisted Association's John Rowan and Wounded Warrior Project's Dawn Halfaker.
 
 
Chair Patty Murray: Let me just say as I continue to sit down with veterans across my home state, I hear many of the same things that those of you who will testify hear from your members: veterans who are concerned that they can't get access to health care including mental health care when they need it, continue to wait for months on a decision claims and are unaware of the services that are available to them.  Veterans tell me about the obstacles to employment that they continue to face and many tell me that they are afraid to write the word "veteran" on their resume. Last year's passage of our VOW To Hire Heroes Act was a great first step in tackling the high rate of unemployment among our veterans but there is a lot of work left to be done.
 
 
That's from Senate Committee Chair Murray's opening statements.  House Committee Chair Jeff Miller had his statement entered into the record and briefly noted the following.
 
Chair Jeff Miller: The one thing I do want to draw attention to is that sequestration does in fact still loom over the VA.  I, too, have asked not only the Secretary [of VA Eric Shinseki] but also the President as well.  I have yet to receive a response and so because of that I have filed a piece of legislation that's very simple. It's a page-and-a-half and it codifies one of the areas that is concurrent law, one of the conflicting statues that says veterans programs -- especially health programs -- are, in fact, not going to be subject to sequestration.  So I look forward to one of two things, either that bill passing and becoming law or secondly getting an answer from the administration as to whether or not we are going to be impacted by that.
 
Chair Murray had noted that in her statement, that she's repeatedly asked for an answer on this issue.  Sequestration will most likely kick in due to budget issues.  If it does, it will be automatic.  (Automatic cuts to federal programs to lower the budget for the Fiscal Year 2013.)  Is VA effected or not?  This is a question that's been asked and asked again, over and over.  Murray even asked Secretary Shinseki in a February 29th hearing (see the March 1st snapshot):
 
 
Chair Patty Murray: [. . .] let me begin the questions by getting this one off the table.  It's on the issue of sequestration and cuts to spending.  Like I said in my opening remarks I believe that all VA programs including medical care are exempt from cuts but there is some ambiguity between the budget act and the existing law. And when I asked the acting OMB director to adress this issue in a budget hearing two weeks ago, he said OMB had yet to make a final determination.  So I am concerned that by not settling this issue now, we are failing to provide our veterans with the clarity they really deserve to have.  And so while you're here, I wanted to ask you: Do you believe that all VA programs -- including medical care -- are exempt from any future cuts?
 
 
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I think, Madame Chairman, the answer that the OMB director provided you was the same one that I understand.  They are still addressing the issue. For my purposes, I would tell you I'm not planning on sequestration.  I'mI  addressing my requirements and presenting my budget as  you would expect me to do.  I think sequestration in part or in whole is not necessarily good policy.  And I think the President would argue the best approach here is a balanced deficit reduction and that the budget he has presented does that and I would ask that the Congress look at that budget and favorably consider it.
 
Chair Patty Murray:  I think we all hope that is the outcome but we want to provide clarity to our veterans. They are very concerned about this issue. 
 
 
That was 21 days ago.  Murray, Miller, Filner and Burr (among others) had been asking repeatedly for an answer prior to the above exchange.  However, when the Secretary is asked in an open session, with press present, and he doesn't know the answer, you think he would get on the ball to find out.  It's very basic, or should be, for Eric Shinseki: Would sequestration effect my department or not?
 
It's very basic and you would assume it would be one he would want immediately answered since the budget is being hammered out. 
 
There's no excuse for this non-response and, as Miller points out, he's asked for an answer from President Barack Obama as well and received nothing.  So the point is, it's gone above Shinseki's head and if the administration had wanted the Congress (and the American people) to have an answer, the White House would have already provided one.  There's no excuse for this.  It is a concern to many veterans -- of more than just the current wars -- as to whether or not their benefits or the health care or an education program might be cut.  While supposedly wanting to "honor" veterans of the Iraq War on Monday, Barack refused to do so by answering this very basic question: If sequestration kicks in, will the VA budget be targeted with automatic cuts?
 
 
In her opening remarks, one of the topics Dawn Halfaker noted was the Caregiver-Assistance program, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010.  This allows caregivers access to support services, mental health services, eduaction sessions and counseling among other things.  Although passed and signed into law, the VA, for some reason, decided, "We know what the law says, but let's instead do what we want to."  Dropping back to the July 12, 2011 snapshot:
 
As Ranking Member Michael Michaud explained, the hearing was a follow up to the March 11th hearing by the Subcommittee.  On the Senate side, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee March 2nd hearing (covered in that day's snapshot and  Kat covered it in "Burr promises VA 'one hell of a fight'" and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "The VA still can't get it together").  What both Senate and House Committees learned in the two March hearings was that they had passed legislation that was very different from what the VA was implementing.  Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, noted, "VA's plan on the caregivers issue was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the bill that unanimously cleared this Congress.  Three weeks ago, my Committee staff requested information on how that plan was developed and to date no information has been provided.  Rather than following the law, the administration set forth some overly stringent rules, bureaucratic hurdles, that would essentially deny help to caregivers." 
Schulz explained she was now rated by the VA for providing 40 hours a week of caregiving.  She probably does a great deal more than that but it's not recognized.  She did want it understood that when a wounded veteran returns, there's nothing so simple as 40 hours a week of care.  She reviewed how, in her case, a great deal of time was taken with reorienting and dealing with confusing on the part of her son as to where he was and what was going on. There were sleep and other issues that had to be addressed including bathroom issues and the first weeks contained a great deal of work on reorientation.  It's an important point but it's sad that she had to underscore it. A veteran with no apparent disabilities or challenges will need time to reorient themselves and they may require help on that.  That a wounded veteran would need it should have been obvious to the VA with no caregiver having to point it out.
"I couldn't understand that," Debbie Schulz told the Subcommittee of disparities for caregivers and gave an example of "another caregiver" in Texas who cares for her son suffering from TBI with a spinal cord injury and unable to transfer himself out of his wheel chair is judged of doing only 25 hours of care a week.  "How can that be right?" Schulz wondered.
 
Schulz is Debbie Schulz, the mother of Iraq War veteran Steven K. Schulz who was severly injured in a Falluja attack on April 19, 2005.  Halfaker called for the Committees to again review VA's performance to ensure that they are indeed following the law that the Congress passed (the law that they refused to follow until the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hauled them in for hearings in 2011). We'll note this exchange from today's hearing.
 
Chair Jeff Miller:  Captain, you talked in your testimony or made reference to VA's resistance to the caregiver law if I runderstood what I read.  Can you kind of expand upon it a little bit for us and let us know what your thoughts are?
 
Dawn Halfaker: Sure.  Thank you.  Yeah, I think the biggest thing that we're focused on is one of the parts of the program projected, how many cases VA is going to have to address within this caregiver population and originally it was projected to be 3500 cases and we've already reached that caseload.  So I mean in terms of the ability for VA to be prepared for the amount of cases that they're going to have to deal with, we feel that they need to start looking at that and, of course, how effective is the program being? We're very interested to do another survey within our population to start looking at how well the program's being set up and really how effective it's being.  So those are two of the areas that we're highly focused on. And also looking for VA to kind of comprehensively address all facets of the program.
 
Chair Jeff Miller:  Mr. Cooper, you alluded to something that actually I think everybody talks about, even those of us on the Committee have talked about in the past in regards to how you translate what you did in your time in the service to your civilian life as you transition across.  And we tried in the VOW To Hire Heroes Act to begin to stimulate if you will the states to be able to waive some of their requirements that a truck driver or a combat medic or whatever it may be.  What can the VA, what do you think the VA can do to help the veteran better market themselves or market their skills?
 
Arthur Cooper:  I think if we were to say to the VA that you need to set up programs by which the service member returning is able to sit down with a counselor or counselors and do a resume that is specific to the job that he/she is trying to apply for.  You have the qualifications from having done the job but you don't have the ability to put the job on paper as a resume.  If we can do something to that effect, have that training process in place, that will do a lot toward helping us as far as getting employment -- meanful employment, I'll say it that way.
 
Chair Jeff Miller: Anybody else want to comment? Sgt Major?
 
Sgt Major H. Gene Oversight:  Mr. Chairman, I would comment on that.  Like I said, we put on forty job fairs around the countryside throughout the year and we counsel veterans, service members, young men and women getting out of the service how to write their resume.  As a matter of fact, we have a guy who we used to bring in all the time and he wrote this book Does Your Resume Wear Combat Boots? And basically, we tell people how to make those transitional words from what they do in the military to civilian terminology. So when they build their resume and they put it together, the people that's doing the hiring do understand that and, matter of fact, the people that we bring understand that they're hiring a military person, they know what they get, they know they're going to get somebody that can read and write and that sounds very simple now days but it's not so simple because they can read and write and they can similate what they read -- in other words, they understand it and they can set it to music.  They also realize that they get some leadership with that because they come early, they stay late, they're clean cut.  They're good at all of those sorts of things when they hire a veteran.  And that's the reason that when those companies that hire veterans continue to come back to us because they understand what they did in the military and what they're getting when they bring them on, sir.
 
Chair Jeff Miller: John?

John Rowan: The other issue and the problem is that this is spread across the different states and they all have different laws and applications.  But it would be interesting I think if the DoD people looked at training manuals and things to see that often times they're just missing a little something extra that would give them the certification they need for that particular job.  It's not really analogous but I was a linguist in the military and when I went back to college they gave me some credit for my college but told me I didn't take any reading courses so I couldn't get credit for the whole language.  I mean, it was just something as simple as that.  Now that's a bizarre thing but I'm sure that in some of the medics and things, there's probably just something not quite right that would equate to the equivalent of an education in the private sector and they need to figure that out and add it in.
 
Chair Jeff Miller:  It's interesting that you would bring up the item of not taking reading courses.  I visited a college that shall remain unnamed and was talking with them about the VOW To Hire Heroes Act and saying, "How in the world can a person who has been in a field hospital, doing all of the things that they do, day in and day out, not transfer those skills into a nursing program or something along those lines?"  And the first response?  "Well they haven't had the humanities, they haven't had the English" -- and I'm like, "We have got to change the culture out there to help put these folks to work."  And, as the Sgt Major said, we have people who know what it's like to get up early, work late, do it when they don't want to do it, do it with a smile on their face and you don't find that a lot of times out in the civilian workforce and we've got to find a way to expand that if we can.
 
What they need to do is for DoD to offer classes -- along with medic training,  I'm sorry but I don't find, for example US history to be a joke or something to laugh at.  LVNs getting a BSN from a university (as opposed to a diploma mill) are required to have certain courses and US history and US government are part of those requirements.  DoD should be training in those areas and they should be offering humanities courses (one is generally needed in most LVN-BSN programs).  The point of education is to make you a well rounded citizen.  Is that not a goal the military has for veterans?  They can easily put together courses -- courses which could utilize the training and the mission within the course work.  This should be done for every service member.  The military owes it to them.  In most cases, there is a degree of training that already qualifies it's just not structured so that a college will recognize it. This is a DoD issue that needs to be addressed immediately.
 
 
Due to floor votes starting on the Senate floor, the Senate members had to leave the hearing after the witnesses delivered their opening remarks. We'll note the following exchange.
 
 
Ranking Member Michael Michaud:  You'd mentioned the stateveterans nursing home and the great job that they do.  I really appreciate Mr. Miller's efforts on addressing the issue on reimbursment rates which is extremely important for a lot of veterans around the country -- each one a little differently.  My question is -- because we addressed it back in October,  the Senate hasn't dealt with the legislation as of yet -- what effect is it having for veterans who are 70% or higher in their disabilies throughout some of the nursing homes around the country?
 
 
 
David Fletcher: In cases where we have a large number of -- 70% or higher of veterans in a home, uhm, the cost -- the reimbursement does not give the homes what they -- it doesn't pay for the full cost of care. So the homes actually have to come up with the difference or the veteran.  And then the veteran obviously suffers from that.  I believe in the case especially of a few of the states and in one state in particular, it happened to be Maine, there's a large number of veterans there and the more veterans that you have that are 70% and above that are -- [handed a piece of paper] And of course, the comment I just got is that homes are turning veterans away because they can't match their cost of care. 
 
Ranking Member Michael Michaud:  Thank you and that was the concern that I have.  I know from Maine, you mentioned Maine, Maine veterans nursing homes are going to lose anywhere from $8 to 16 million a year and they can't take that sustainable loss.  I was kind of curious on other states and thank you for that answer.  My next question is for Mr. Tarantino, you talked about education for soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.  And have you found problems there in different states as far as higher ed being willing to take into consideration the experience that a soldier might have had whether it's a medic or working on heavy equipment, whereas the higher ed might at ground zero and work up?  Have you found that to be a problem or is it, have most higher eds been taking that into consideration?
 
Tom Tarantino:  Thank you, Congressman, this is -- this is actually a problem over all.  And this was largely what the VOW To Hire Heroes Act, one of the provisions, was meant to address.  It's less that schools aren't using a veteran's military experience and crediting them for that, it's that professional licenses and certifications that are required to do a lot of vocational jobs -- medics, mechanics, truck drivers -- don't recognize military training experience. There have been a lot of sort of efforts where -- I know ACE has a great way to -- the American Counseling Education, forgive me -- has a great way to translate your military experience into college credit.  But we've never done the math on what a military vocation and a civilian vocation is -- largely because we've never had a generation of business leaders that hadn't served in the military before. This is the first generation where you just don't have very many people who are running the business sector having military experience.  And so now this is one of the things that Congress said last year we're going to need to ramp up quickly is to do the math on the gaps and overlaps between military jobs and vocations and their civilian equivalents so that we can actually have something that the professional sector can say, 'This is what we have, this is what we need.'  And the higher ed sector can follow up with adapting their training to what they need.
 
Ranking Member Michael Michaud:  My last question, probably quick yes or no answer since I'm running out of time, is the House, little over a month ago, passed legislation that sets up a Brack type process dealing with federal buildings and if you look at the VA facility, they already have a process within the VA facility and a utilization rate of VA facilities actually have increased dramatically.  Unfortunately, VA is covered under this legislation that's over here on this Senate side that once it's in that Brach type process they get rid of the VA facility that money doesn't go back to the VA facility and we have a problem as it is with construction within the VA area. Has your organization looked at that legislation and do you support it or oppose it?  Quick yes-or-no answer starting with Mr. Tarantino?
 
Tom Tarantino: We have looked at it.  It hasn't been a priority but we do definitely support that concept. And are looking forward to seeing a lot of stuff passed by the Senate that's come out of the House. 
 
Now we'll note another Congressional hearing.  I was not at this hearing.  Wally was and was ready to do a brief synopsis for this snapshot but we've got a press release from Senator Patty Murray's office that we can use instead (and spare Wally the trouble -- thank you, Wally):
 
Murray Presses Army Secretary on Handling of the Mental Wounds of War
 
At Hearing of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Veterans Chairman Murray pressed Army Secretary John McHugh on troubled PTSD unit at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and whether similar problems exist at other bases
 
 
 
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, questioned Army Secretary John McHugh on recent shortcomings in the Army's efforts to properly diagnose and treat the invisible wounds of war.  Specifically, Murray discussed the forensic psychiatry unit at Madigan Army Medical Center on Joint Base Lewis-McChord that is under investigation for changing mental health diagnoses based on the cost of providing care and benefits to servicemembers.  The Army is currently reevaluating nearly 300 service members and veterans who have had their PTSD diagnoses changed by that unit since 2007.
 
Key excerpt of Sen. Murray's remarks:
 
"Secretary McHugh, as you and I have discussed, Joint Base Lewis McChord in my home state is facing some very real questions on the way they have diagnosed PTSD and the invisible wounds of war.  And today, unfortunately, we are seeing more information on the extent of those problems. 
 
"Mr. Secretary, this is a copy of today's Seattle Times.  In it is an article based on the most recent review of the Forensice Psychiatry Department at JBLM which -- as you know -- is under investigation for taking the cost of mental health care into account in their decisions.

"And what it shows is that since that unit was stood up in 2007 over 40% of those service members who walked int he door with a PTSD diagnosis had their diagnosis changed to something else or overturned entirely. 
 
"What is says is that over 4 in 10 of our service members -- many who were already being treated for PTSD -- and were due the benefits and care that comes with that diagnoses -- had it taken away by this unit.  And that they were then sent back into the force or the local community.
 
"Now, in light of all the tragedies we have seen that stem from the untreated, invisible wounds of war -- I'm sure that you would agree that this is very concerning.
 
"Not only is it damaging for these soldiers, but it also furthers the stigma for others that are deciding whether to seek help for behavioral problems."
 
###
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
@PattyMurray
202-224-2834
Get Updates from Senator Murray
 
The Seattle Times article referred to above is Hal Bernton's "40% of PTSD diagnoses at Madigan were reversed."
 
 
Yesterday Iraq was slammed with violence that claimed over fifty lives and left over two hundred injured, "just days before Baghdad hosts a landmark Arab summit," Eleanor Hall observed this morning on The World Today (Australia's ABC, link is text and audio) leading into a report by Meredith Griffiths on the violence.

MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: This is despite the fact for the past couple of days intensive searches at checkpoints have ground Baghdad to a halt. Security had been ramped up in preparation for a meeting of the Arab world's top leaders. It's the first time the Arab League have met in Baghdad in 20 years, and the government considers it the most important diplomatic event yet for post-Saddam Iraq. Officials had been hoping to use the summit to showcase the country's improved security since the sectarian fighting a few years ago that almost pulled the country into civil war.

Trend News Agency notes, "Holding the next summit of the League of Arab States in Iraq demonstrates the restoration of stability and resumption of its role in the Arab and regional areas, Iraqi ambassador to Kazakhstan, Sabir Abbud Al-Musaui told Trend today." It does no such thing. The Arab League Summit is two days. Al Rafidayn reports that the capital will be closed down for seven days. When you have to shut down the capital for seven days to hold a two day event, that's not a sign of success.


Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspaers) reports, "Only Monday, Iraqi authorities began practicing security procedures for the summit, flooding existing checkpoints with large numbers of special forces troops and setting up new checkpoints, where they searched cars with dogs, looking for explosives." Al Mada notes that, this morning, it might take as much as three hours for someone living in Baghdad to get to their job in Baghdad and that might require them leaving their car at some point and continuing on foot. Does Nouri al-Maliki really think that if these measures are successful it says anything about Baghdad other than that they can put the city on crackdown for seven days? Does this enstill trust in foreign investors?

As for the summit, Middle East North Africa Financial Network doesn't expect much from the summit:

One thing is certain and that is that the Baghdad summit will be anything but remarkable. Egypt will be busy preparing for its presidential election, the first since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak, Libya, Tunis and Yemen have enough domestic problems of their own. The Gulf countries will find it difficult to demonize Iran when the host has special relations with Tehran, while attempts to discuss the uprising in Bahrain will be foiled by the GCC group.

Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports Nouri has called for all Iraqis to unite. Spreading love apparently means then launching into an attack on Ayad Allawi who, apparently, isn't included included in the call for uniting. Al Mada reports Nouri has declared Allawi is bad for the government of Iraq. Nouri's upset because Allawi's announced if the top four demands for the national conference aren't implemented in 72 hours Iraqiya will consider walking out. This would be highly embarrassing to Nouri with the Arab leaders visiting. Especially since most of the Arab leaders can't stand Nouri. (As most Iraqi press has noted, Saudi Arabia is only participating because the US has badgered and cajoled them non-stop.)
 
Iraqiya won the 2010 elections.  Ayad Allawi is the leader of Iraqiya.  State of Law came in second, Nouri is the leader of State of Law.  Because Nouri refused to follow or honor the results of the election and because Nouri had the White House backing him, he was able to lead Iraq into an eight month-plus period of political stalemate.  This ended in November 2010 when the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was signed off on by all parties.  Chief among the concessions that allowed Nouri to stay on as prime minister was that Allawi would head an independent security commission.  That never happened, the promised referendum and census on Kirkuk (to please the Kurds) never happened.  He became prime minister and tossed aside the agreement.
 
Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observed yesterday of the ongoing political crisis (from the 2010 elections forward):
Since then Iraqiya has been given only a handful of ministries (fewer than promised), but with the largest plurality in parliament could theoretically push through a vote of no confidence, forcing new elections.
That is true legally speaking, but Maliki's increased centralization of power under his control, including naming himself as Interior and Defense Minister to keep control of all national troops and police, has many believing that he doesn't intend to allow step down even if he loses his legal mandate.
 
 
Malaki still holds some senior cabinet positions for himself, and still has an arrest warrant out for his own VP, who is in hiding in Kurdistan where Baghdad's law does not apply. On Monday, a million loyalists of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rallied in south Iraq Monday decrying poor services and rampant graft. Demonstrators shouted: "Yes to rights! Yes to humanity! No to injustice! No to poverty! No to corruption!"
Some protesters held aloft electrical cables, water canisters and shovels to symbolise the poor services that plague Iraq. Others carried empty coffins with words plastered on them such as "democracy," "electricity," "education" and "services." Iraq suffers from electricity shortages, with power cuts multiplying during the boiling summer, poor clean water provision, widespread corruption and high unemployment. This is despite the U.S. spending $44 billion on reconstruction in Iraq, the failure of which was the subject of my book, We Meant Well.
 
On Van Buren's first point, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is in the KRG where he is a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. He has stated he cannot receive a fair trial in Baghdad (Nouri's charged him with terrorism) because Nouri controls the Baghdad courts.  He's asked that the trial be moved to Kirkuk.  His assertion that he would not receive a fair trial was proven correct when, last month, nine Baghdad judges held a press conference to announce he was guilty of terrorism.  That was February 16th and, in that day's snapshot, we offered how the news being reported by AP and Reuters should have been reported:
 
 
IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT
After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's
assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary.
BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism.  Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day.  Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial.  Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.
During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary.  Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial.
Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq.  This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today.
A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held. 
Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made.
 
 
Had he been tried?  No.  Is the Iraqi Constitution unclear or confusing as to how guilt is determined?  Article 19th's fifth clause is very clear: "The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial.  The accused may not be tried on the same crime fora second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced."
 
They may have had an 'investigation' but an 'investigation' does not prove guilt, only a trial does and for judges to hold a press conference and announce that someone is guilty of charges they have not yet been tried for is a huge miscarriage of justice.  The nine should be impeached for misconduct.  And the process was already being criticized prior to that for all the 'confessions' that kept getting aired on television.
 
Reuters reports today that al-Hashemi has accused the Baghdad government "of torturing to death one of his bodyguards, an accusation that could make it more difficult to resolve a case that has split the country's politics on dangerous sectarian lines."
 
So Moqtada al-Sadr's followers are protesting (Van Buren's second point), Iraqiya is threatening a walk out and, see yesterday's snapshot, KRG President Massoud Barzani made blistering remarks about a new dictatorship in Iraq (referring to Nouri).  What happens next?  Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) argues nothing happens next:
 
The reason is simple: although all of Maliki's rivals are "in one box" with Erbil as one Iraqiya MP said, they are only in that box until the moment comes that Maliki is removed and everyone backs off for a different reason.
For Maliki, although the conflict between the political groups is reaching a critical point again, just like all the previous times, nothing will happen. Meetings will take place, each bloc cuts a different deal with him and he will continue to stay.
He will get a period of calm and then a new crisis starts.
 
And that may be.  Nouri has demonstrated time and time again that he's happy playing the petulant child and digging his heels in.  Over time, others are encouraged to be the 'grown up' and give in.  Until someone stands up to the spoiled brat Nouri al-Maliki, there's no real reason for him to change or believe anyone could outwait him.
 
 
In news of violence, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) notes a Baghdad home invasion in which the throats of the "mother and her three children" were slit. Al Rafidayn notes a tribal sheik was assassinated in Rawa.
 
 
 
 
I applied for a conscientious objection discharge from the US Air Force in 2007. With the help of Courage to Resist, I was able to navigate that process successfully and I received an honorable discharge eight months later. However, today as a counselor to US military objectors, I know that things do not always go as well for others, regardless of the merits of their application. We have a lot of work to do to better support the troops who refuse to fight. It's because of the financial support of thousands of folks like yourself that I'm able to do this work as a Courage to Resist staff member.
Today, I'm interested in making sure our mission of supporting GI resisters—accused WikiLeaks truth-teller Army PFC Bradley Manning, for example—adapts to and becomes part of the broader forces gathering against US militarism and empire.
We have an atrocious and seemingly endless war and uncertain future in Afghanistan. We have not actually "withdrawn" from Iraq. We have covert wars and an expanding military presence all over the world. We have the most significant military whistle-blower of our generation, Bradley Manning, facing life in prison. And every day we're hearing threats of an attack on the nation of Iran—not unlike the propaganda fed us in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2004.
With the backing of thousands of friends like you, Courage to Resist has had a great history of supporting individual military resisters refusing illegal war, occupation and policies of empire—from "all the way back" when Marine L/Cpl Stephen Funk publicly refused to deploy to Iraq in April 2003, to when Army Lt. Ehren Watada became the first officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq in May 2006, to the hundreds of lower profile objectors we've assisted since. We've been able to do this work by collaborating with concerned community members, veterans, military families—and folks like you. Like our mission statement says, I really do believe that by supporting GI resistance, counter recruiting and draft resistance, we can harness "people power" to weaken the pillars that maintain these seemingly endless wars.
 
 
 
 
 
 
at