NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden leaked documents to Glenn and Glenn reported on them. At that moment, because she's such a nice person, C.I. let us know we could do what we wanted but she would be tabling criticism of Glenn because the government would be attacking him.
She's followed that.
And good for her. She's a woman of real integrity.
Glenn, of course, has none.
If you've missed it, Glenn's in another flame war.
He's going after Sibel Edmonds and mocking her.
Sibel is the 9-11 whistle blower who risked her own safety and well being to tell the truth.
Glenn tries to impugn her.
She notes Paypal has been working with the government -- the same Paypal now bankrolling Glenn and his cock buddy Jerry Scahill. Jerry sniffed cock and had to come running:
The *real* scandal is that
@pierre has secretly purchased all of @ggreenwald's dogs & donated them to the Koch brothers
If I was known in political circles as Samantha Power's butt boy (the way Jerry Scahill is), I think I'd shut my damn mouth.
But cock buddies always have to attack women.
Equally true, whores like Jerry are so well used -- he spread for Barack in 2008 with one Nation magazine post after another -- his boi p**sy is like bubble yum by now -- they have to take whatever they can get and Sibel noting PayPal's connections with the NSA bother Jerry since he's gotten in bed with PayPal (PayPal's backing the Jerry and Glenn-Glenn orgy masquerading as a new press outlet -- your first clue that it's not new? Jay Rosen is involved! Ha!).
Oh, Jerry Scahill, find another bone to bury your nose in. Or maybe go stick it back up Samantha Power's ass?
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Let's start with nonsense. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee which held a hearing yesterday. Veterans are grumbling about the footsie the Committee is playing with the VA and at some point the press will have to deal with that because the anger's only mounting. Every veteran I spoke with yesterday that attended the hearing noted the nonsense from the Committee and specifically singled out Senator Sherrod Brown's ridiculous statements about how VA didn't need a lecture, they know how important it is to solve this problem.
Oh, no, they need many lectures. Committee Chair Bernie Sanders can take comfort in the fact that Brown's sucking up distracted from Sanders' own problems with regards to confronting VA. In the future, if Brown's going to have a future in the Congress (that's in doubt, he's close to losing veterans' votes and as we saw with Jim Webb, when you lose that support, you need to announce that you're not running for re-election), he's going to need to stop sucking up to the VA in public hearings. Brown's lucky in that he's not facing re-election until 2018. He's unlucky in that he's now on the radar and every move he makes regarding veterans will be closely tracked. And Ohio is one of the worst states on the number of days to get a claim adjudicated.
Let's listen to Chair Sanders at yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.
Chair Bernie Sanders: Nonetheless this Committee, at our hearing in mid-March, heard about the unacceptably large number of claims that were pending and the numerous challenges confronting the Department. It is my view, and the view I believe, of every member of this committee that no veteran should have to wait years to have his or her claim adjudicated. Today, as I understand it, the VA is going to give us some good news about significant progress made in this area. When we last met to discuss this issue, there were over 896,000 claims in the inventory. Of that number more than 632,000 or 70 percent were backlogged – or pending longer than VA’s goal of 125 days. That is a staggering number. Today, as I understand, those numbers look much different and are much improved. The number of claims pending longer than 125 days – or officially part of the backlog – has dropped to just over 395,000 claims or 57 percent of the total inventory. That is a large number but it is significant. The total number of pending claims has dropped to its lowest level since July of 2012 at slightly less than 694,000 claims. Let me be clear – many challenges remain and I will touch on some of them later in my statement. We must, however, begin today by . . .
Blah blah blah. And he kept talking about a March hearing.
If you're talking backlog, March doesn't mean a damn thing and your citing it makes you look silly.
Granted, the April hearing wasn't a Senate VA hearing. That's probably why it was an important hearing. April 23rd, Senator Patty Murray, as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, chaired a hearing. It is the most important hearing for veterans in 2013. It was, it remains, the most important hearing. Committee Chair Murray, of course, is the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and she continues to serve on the Senate VA Committee.
In real time, we covered the pertinent exchange at length. I'm both (a) not in the mood and (b) not going to waste space on it. So we'll do a small excerpt.
For those who don't know, just to set this up, the VA claims system had a huge backlog and, at this hearing, Shinseki and the always laughable Alison Hickey explained a new way of doing things. And the press just ignored it and continues to. It's a shell game. Let's go to the excerpt.
Chair Patty Murray: As I mentioned, you have a new announcement of a new initiative to expedite claims that have been waiting for over a year. And that's encouraging and I'm glad to see that the Department's taking action but I do have some questions about how it is going to be implemented. And I wanted to ask you, if the VA determines the veteran's final rating is lower than the provisional rating, will the Department seek to recover money that's already been paid to that veteran?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Madam Chairman, uh, you know, that's a question. I, uh, I-I, what I would say is, I -- our -- historically, when we've established a standard for a veteran, we've usually stayed with that and, uh, let me call on Secretary Hickey here but my-my intent is that the provisional rating that's provided will be on those issues for which we have clarity and documentation and we can render a, uh, a decision. For issues that, uh, where documentation isn't provided, those are the issues that remain open up to a year, for veterans to locate, with our help even, documentation that would, uh, allow us to,uh, make a decision there. Uh, Secretary Hickey.
Allison Hickey: Chairman Murray, thank you for the question, for your, uh, interest in the initiative which we think is, uh, really important to, uh, ensure that we're, uh, taking care of those veterans who have waited the longest while we completed the more than 260,000 Agent Orange claims to take care of our Vietnam veterans over the last two and a half years. We-we, uh - We are using the provisions that allow us to make good decisions so we will continue, uhm, under this provisional criteria to have -- to use service treatment, to use private medical records, to use the information available to our, uhm, on our veterans in terms of the nature and character of their service. So all the similar evidence we have used in previous decisions we will use again to ensure that we, uh, don't make any of those kinds of decisions. I don't expect to see any of those decisions, uh, where we overcompensate for, uh, for a claim. Uhm, the other thing that that we will do is we will, uh, keep the reason for the provisional decision, we put a really huge safety net under every one of our veterans, we're, uh, going to keep the record for a whole year there -- the ability for our veterans to come back with additional evidence. Uh, uhm, uh, and we will keep asking if --
Chair Patty Murray: So the additional year will only be to provide information to have an additional claim, not to lower the claim?
Allison Hickey: Uh, th-the, uh, the reason for the year is to allow to increase the rating, uh, if necessary so I think in -- The advantage is our veterans for the additional year. Uh, and then they still have after that, the same appeal, uh, processes that they've had in the past. So we don't anticipate, uh, having, uhm, uh, conditions where we overpay veterans under this initiative.
In real time, reporting on that hearing the day it took place, I wrote:
What the VA is proposing is that a temporary rating be created. This temporary rating may become permanent. Or it might increase or it might decrease. If you're a veteran qualifying for some small-business program based on your rating, how does this impact that? Hickey gave no response about that or how the temporary claim would effect anything.
Now I think she's an idiot who should be fired. But can you be that stupid that when asked a direct question, you completely miss it? Maybe so. Maybe Allison Hickey is The Dumbest Person In The World. However, I just see her as deeply dishonest.
As deeply dishonest is the new program that's being discussed.
Murray is correct. This is going mean "increasing the workload by requiring two" or more "ratings decisions instead of one." And this is only more clear when Hickey asserts that after a veteran receives a rating he or she finds less than satisfactory and they return with more information, Hickey's words, "we will expedite that claim to the front of the line."
What's really going on here?
The VA has bad press because they've not eliminated the claims backlog, they have not reduced the backlog. They have been given everything they've asked for. Congress has actually spent the last years asking them, "Is that all you need? What else can we do to help you with this?" VA has insisted they had all they needed.
So this is VA's problem. At the hearing, Senator Tammy Baldwin observed, "Veterans don't want to hear about new claims or new processes, they want results and so do I." She's correct. However, this program's not about veterans, it's about the press. This is a distraction that will create the illusion of something new which, the VA hopes, will garner good press.
In what world, when you're failing at the claims system, are you allowed to create a new system that will pull more employees away?
There were members of the press at that hearing.
They ignored this significant development/change.
They have since falsely reported on the 'success' of the VA with the backlog.
And Chair Sanders was praising them yesterday. 'Oh, goodness, you're reducing the backlog.'
No, they're not.
They're slapping on 'provisional decisions' to rush these through so they can move them into the 'decided' column. Even though they're not.
I have no problem with a hasty VA decision -- which comes with a real appeal process. I have no fear that veterans are trying to game the system. Unlike Senator Jon Tester, I don't have visions of them smoking and drinking and see that as abuse of the system. I think -- whether they smoke, drink, dip, what have you -- they're trying to get the health care they were promised. Promises were made, promises need to be kept.
But the provisional 'ratings'? The VA can change them themselves -- even if the veteran doesn't appeal. Why are these temporary calls being issued?
It's a shell game to move the numbers without really doing so.
"Reducing the backlog at the expense of accuracy is not acceptable," Chair Sanders declared Wednesday morning.
Two days after the April 23rd hearing, Mark Flatten (Washington Examiner) did something none of his peers could do, he reported on veterans fears (justifiable) about the VA's new rating:
Under the new plan, VA will issue a "provisional" rating within 60 days on cases two years old or more. Veterans would then have a year to submit new evidence to increase their rating, or ask that the rating be made final so they can file an appeal.
The apparent catch is that issuing the provisional rating may lead to creation of a new case, thus letting VA "close" the old one when in fact the veteran's claim remains outstanding.
Ronald Robinson, president of the AFGE union local that represents VA claims workers in Columbia, S.C., said the new rules are nothing more than an effort to make the agency's sinking statistics look better.
Chair Sanders declared at yesterday's hearing, "Veterans are still waiting too long for a decision. And the Inspector General to find issues with the quality, with the quality of the work. I am concerned by the most recent IG findings which found significant problems with the provisional decisions reviewed at the Los Angeles regional office."
Problems with the provisional ratings?
Who could have seen that happening?
I said we'd cover a December House Veterans Affairs Subcomittee and I never did. Sorry. I don't like writing about this topic. I can go on over and over about Tim Arango's September 2012 report for the New York Times where US President Barack Obama sent another "unit of Army Special Operations soldiers" into Iraq in the fall of 2012 -- so much for the 'withdrawal.'
But this nonsense? Senators were present when this new 'system' was announced. The press was as well. And yet they've both failed on this issue. Veterans groups have raised concerns and yet both groups continue to fail and every other month some mouth breathing press loser is trumpeting 'the numbers' and 'the reductions' and never noting provisional ratings or what's really going on.
At the December 4th hearing, the VA's Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations, Sondra F. McCauley was one of the witnesses.
Deputy Assistant IG Sondra McCauley: On April 19, 2013, VBA implemented a special initiative to address the oldest pending disability claims in the current backlog. VBA stated the intent of the initiative was to work all claims pending for more than 2 years within 60 days, beginning April 19, 2013. VAROs were directed to devote all RVSRs and as many Veterans Service Representatives as needed to ensure all claims pending over 2-year old were processed and completed. According to VBA, RVSRs were to immediately process the 2-year old claims based on the available evidence in the veterans' claims folders. Further, rating decisions produced were to be considered provisional ratings unless all evidence in support of the claims had already been received (and the claim was considered ready-to-rate) or the ratings assigned provided the highest evaluation for the particular diagnostic code for each claimed issue. However, if medical examination reports or other Federal records were needed, these older claims could not be processed as provisional rating decisions. During one review errors were identified at the Los Angeles VARO when leadership provided conflicting guidance on the proper procedures for processing provisional rating decisions. We determined 10 -- 91 percent -- of 11 provisional rating decisions we reviewed were not compliant with VBA's guidance related to the 2-year claims processing initiative. Eight of the 10 provisional decisions were determined to be non- compliant because the rating decisions were made without supporting VA medical examinations as required. One claim was decided without Service Treatment Records, which are considered Federal records and must be obtained by VARO staff prior to rendering a provisional rating decision. In the remaining case, the provisional rating was controlled by a future diary that scheduled the claim for review in 2 years instead of 1 year as required. Requiring a rating decision to be rendered before a medical examination is obtained as a basis for a decision is in conflict with VBA policy. On May 14, 2013, conflicting guidance was sent to the Los Angeles VARO staff via an e-mail from the VARO Director’s office. The guidance incorrectly stated all 2-year old cases requiring a medical examination must have the medical examinations ordered by May 15, 2013. This conflicts with VBA guidance because if a medical examination was required to decide a claim, the claim could not be completed as a provisional decision until staff obtained the necessary medical examinations. The guidance also incorrectly indicated that any claims with medical examinations not completed by June 3, 2013, were to be decided by a provisional rating.
We are concerned similar errors may exist among other provisional rating decisions completed by the Los Angeles VARO after the conflicting guidance was issued. VBA provided data that revealed the Los Angeles VARO completed 532 provisional rating decisions between April 19 – June 19, 2013. VARO staff completed 470 of those 532 provisional decisions claims after the conflicting guidance was disseminated on May 14, 2013. All 10 provisional rating decisions that we identified as non-compliant were completed after this date. We recommended that VBA review all of the provisional rating decisions completed by the Los Angeles VARO after the conflicting guidance was issued to ensure they are accurate.
So in the only examination thus far, 90% of the provisional ratings in the LA area did not follow the (limited) procedures and are most likely incorrect. The new rating is prompting the IG to call for all of the LA area's provisional ratings to be reviewed.
"In fact, it appears the employees were encouraged to violate VA policies," Senator Johnny Isakson noted yesterday of the IG findings on the LA area. He noted that the IG recommendation of a review of all provisional rating decisions had been completed and the VA founds "100s that contained errors."
Hundreds. Plural. And we're only talking 532 decisions.
Senator Patty Murray noted what she's hearing from veterans in Washington state, "[. . .] I have heard repeatedly from veterans that they were confused and frustrated with the provisional rating process. Some believe their claims have been flat out rejected and others didn't understand that they have a year to submit additional evidence. Secretary Hickey, we need to hear more from you today about how the VA's going to improve outreach and communication with veterans [. . .]" [Note, at the end of yesterday's snapshot, the press release issued by Senator Murrary's office can be read.]
"During Committee oversight," Chair Sanders declared yesterday morning, "my staff has identified clear and unmistakable errors in provisional rating decisions."
Appearing before the Committee was the VA's Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey. In her opening remarks, Hickey declared, "In June, VA completed the first phase of the initiative, which focused on all claims that had been pending over 2 years. While some claims from that category were still outstanding due to the unavailability of a claimant and other unique circumstances, approximately 99 percent of these 2-year claims (over 67,000) had been processed for Veterans, eliminating those claims from the backlog. Since that milestone, VBA claims processors have focused on completing the claims of Veterans who have been waiting over 1 year for a decision. VA has processed approximately 96 percent of all 513,000 claims pending over 1 year."
Chair Bernie Sanders noted Shinseki's proposed goal for 2015, 125 claims processed within 125 days processed with 98% accuracy. Sanders wanted to know if VA was "on track to achieve the Secretary's goal" by 2015. Hickey responded that "we are on track barring any implications to our full" budget request for 2014 Fiscal Year, she stated they would meet the goal. We'll note this exchange.
Chair Bernie Sanders: In April of this year, VA rolled out an initiative to provide decisions on the claims that have been pending the longest. While I appreciate VA's efforts to provide the veterans that have been waiting the longest with decisions, I continue to have concerns about this initiative. The IG, the Inspector General's, recent findings regarding provisional ratings decisions at the Los Angeles regional office which found a number of errors was very, very concerning. I understand the office corrected the inappropriate guidance that was issued to staff in June and is now in the process of correcting any errors in claims which may have been improperly adjudicated. So this IG report is very, very concerning to many of us. Can you explain to this Committee the actions that have been taken to remedy the problems in Los Angeles.
Allison Hickey: Uh, Chairman, I absolute can do that but let me first --
I'm not Bernie Sanders. I don't give a damn about Allison Hickey whose ass should have been fired long ago. She was asked a question. I'm not going to waste my time including her distractions and her efforts to avoid answering by eating up time.She said "the regional office knew in one week." In one week of implementation, the regional office knew. May 14th
The obvious question there is, if they knew one week after it was implemented, (that would be May 21st) why did the IG find errors June 19th?
If, as Hickey stammer, "they themselves identified within a week," why weren't they fixed. How incompetent is management at the VA?
I guess the answer to that question was staring at the Committee members (Allison Hickey).
3 veterans at the hearing that I spoke with yesterday self-identified as Democrats but stated that maybe the answer for veterans is to have one party in charge of the Senate and another in charge of the White House? It was felt that the Committee is largely toothless, offers supposed indignation ("weakly stated," one veteran said) and then smooths over everything with ridiculous comments like Brown's that a lecture is not needed. It was noted that Ranking Member Richard Burr would be better right now as Chair Burr because he's not "playing footsie" with the VA. Let's move to some of his exchange.
Ranking Member Richard Burr corrected Hickey's claims (lies) that the leadership knew in one week of the LA problems and immediately addressed them. Under strong questioning from Burr, Hickey did admit that the same mistakes continued to happen for weeks
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Were provisional decisions included in determining the number of claims VA has completed during the calendar year 2013?
Allison Hickey: I'm going to ask -- Well -- She's just told me "yes" so I will answer "yes" on behalf of Deputy Under Secretary. There were 14,000 of those claims which were 3% of all of the claims we had done in the oldest claim initiative which was 67,000 two-years-and-older 512,000 one-year-and-older.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: You - you highlighted 90% quality or accuracy, you used both words. Last week, the American Legion testified and I quote, "VA's accuracy statistics from the Monday accuracy reports are not consitent with the review of recently adjudicated claims as conducted by the American Legion. According to the Legion, they reviewed 260 decisions and found errors in 55%. Also National Veterans Legal Service Program testified that current error rate was somewhere between 30 and 40% -- in some RO's it's higher. Are they wrong?
Allison Hickey: Uhm, uh, so Senator Burr, they -- It's an apple and orange discussion, if I may have a moment to clarify that. First of all, let me just state for the record and for every time I talk on this subject anywhere: We will not trade production for quality. It is an and equation. Both must rise which is why it's 125 and 98. But there is a very different way the IG and others are looking at issues then we do. I will tell you that our process has been validated by an external agency --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Ma'am, let me ask my question again: Are they wrong?
Allison Hickey: Uhm. Uh-uh-uh. [Laughing] Senator Burr, they are right for the way they look at it, we are right for the way we measure it which is statistically --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: General, General. They're the customer, aren't they?
Allison Hickey: Actually, the veteran, the family member and the survivor are my customers, Senator.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Yeah and these are the organizations that represent them --
Allison Hickey: They are, Senator
Ranking Member Richard Burr: -- and -- Should this Committee believe that there's any VSO in America that believes that the accuracy or the quality is at 97% right now?
Allison Hickey: Uhhhh, Senator Burr, I would ask you to ask them for their opinions, I can't speak for them.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: They testified on it. But that's not necessarily something that computes.
Allison Hickey: Senator Burr, I have a statistically valid validated process that goes further --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: I asked -- I asked a very simple question: Are they wrong? And I guess the answer is "yes" because you're saying your statistics are different than what their review has been.
Allison Hickey: They have a different process, Senator.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Okay. According to VA's Monday Morning Workload Reports, there are at least 266,000 appeals that have not been resolved. That's about 100,000 more than were pending five years ago although appeals are not counted in VA's backlog statistics, they represent individuals who have yet to know what benefits they will receive. Do the performance standards for regional office directors and service center managers include how quickly and accurately they're handling appeals
Allison Hickey: So Senator Burr the answer is -- the simple answer to your question is yes, they do. However, I would also tell you that a veteran does know our opinion to an answer on their claim. Uhm, uh, they get and, uh, many cases, they are deriving resources uh-uh associated with that claim already even though they might be appealing only a part in piece of-of our decision.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: So you have a metrics that you use to determine this?
Allison Hickey: We absolutely have metrics on --
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Would you provide that metrics for the Committee?
Allison Hickey: We will do that, sir.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: On average, how long have those 266,000 appeals been pending?
Allison Hickey: Uh, Senator, the Chairman cites some, uh, 800 days so I will, uh, accept th--
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Do you track, does the VA track that?
Allison Hickey: We do, Senator Burr.
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Okay. At what point is an appeal -- is an appeal considered to be backlogged?
Allison Hickey: We do not have a backlog number for appeals.
We need to stop it there. But hopefully you're getting what the press didn't. The VA does not include "appeals" in the backog. In April, they came up with the 'clever' (dishonest) policy to just slap decisions on claims -- provisional ratings. And that moved them out of the backlog. Every one of those 'provisional ratings' may be appealed. The VA doesn't care, it doesn't count appeals as part of the 'backlog.'
You'd care if you went from an unacceptable 200 day wait to an 800 day wait.
But the press whores for the VA. They're too stupid to do their damn job. This was all apparent at the April 23rd hearing. I'm not a genius and it was obvious to me then. This is a con game and veterans are getting very outraged while it continues and people like Senator Sherrod Brown look the other way and insist that the VA doesn't need a lecture.
On veterans, Leo Shane III (Stars and Stripes) reports Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy will be hosting Taking The Hill on MSNBC starting this Sunday. Currently, this is an as-needed program meaning it will appear as a series of specials. (One aired last month.) Murphy served in the House of Representatives after returning from Iraq. He heroically led the overturning of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Hopefully, he will show similar strength and leadership on the airwaves.
Let's move to Iraq. Zhu Ningzhu (Xinhua) reports Iraq has signed a contract to purchase "24 multi-role light fighters from South Korea" to help fight 'terrorism.' 'Terrorism,' in Nouri's Iraq, means the Iraqi people. Nouri is quoted stating, "Today we have signed a contract to purchase the Korean 24 T- 50IQ aircraft for training and military operations. The deal signals a start of enhancing the performance of the Ministries of Defense and Interior in the aspects of defending the country and fighting terrorism." Nouri, due to his illegal power grab, currently is the Minister of the Interior (police) and the Minister of Defense (military).
The big news out of Iraq today? All Iraq News reports:
The leader of the Sadr Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, described the Asaeb Ahlulhaq as “Governmental Militias.”
During his response on a question from his followers over an operation done by a group of Asaeb wearing military uniform to kidnap citizens in Diyala province , al-Sadr said “Yes. They are governmental militia and you should boycott them and sue them if they harm you or complain to their tribes.”
This is the League of Righteous. Let's drop back to July 9, 2011:
Earlier we were mentioning the little scamp Ali al-Lami who was killed a few weeks back. A terrorist, in fact. The US military held him for awhile. They held others with the Shi'ite thug group the League of Righteous. They're responsible for the deaths of 5 American service members. Maybe more. But 5 they are known to have killed. And Barack let their leader and some of his followers go in a deal in the summer of 2009 -- a deal that the families of the 5 fallen soldiers were not consulted on or even given a heads up to -- because Barack didn't want to be president of the United States. That was too small for Barry. He needed -- his ego needed -- a world stage. So when the British needed something to get their 5 citizens kidnapped by the League freed, Barry said, "Screw dead Americans who were killed doing a job their government ordered them to do, I'm going to free the League -- this rag-tag group of killers -- because I don't give a damn about the safety of Iraqis and because I want to get in good with England."
So Barry released them and, as usual from Princess Tiny Meat, his 'grand gesture' fell quickly. Because the addiction to the Kool-Aid was still so high in 2009, let's drop back we'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot with the realization that some who looked the other way in real time will now be outraged:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
Agreed. Not only did Barry betray the fallen, he demonstrated yet again no one should trust him at the adult table by himself. His 'big' deal resulted in only one living British citizen released. Three corpses were released. The fifth kidnapped victim?
Though Barry's 'big' deal was supposed to free all five, the League, years later, is now insisting they want a new deal (and figure Barry's just the pushover to give it to them?). Al Mada reports they have issued a statement where they savage the US government for not honoring -- and quickly honoring -- the agreement made with them. As a result, they say Alan McMenemy will not be released.
Peter Moore, the only one released alive, was a computer tech working in Iraq. Four British bodyguards were protecting him. The bodyguards were McMenemy, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec MacLachlan and Jason Cresswell. The families of the four have continued to publicly request that Alan McMenemy be released.
They condemn the "procrastionation" of the US government after the deal was made and state that a promise was also broken when "US forces did not stop attacks" -- apparently Barack made very grand promises -- so now Alan McMenemy will not be released. The statement is credited to Akram al-Ka'bi.
What the statement really does is demonstrate what many condemned in 2009: The US government, the administration, entered into an agreement that did not benefit the US or Iraq. They freed known killers from prison. Killers of Iraqis, killers of American citizens. There was nothing to be gained by that act for Iraq or the US. At some point, history will ask how Barack Obama thought he was fulfilling his duties of commander in chief by making such an ignorant move?
The most important recent report by the New York Times on Asaib al-Haq was about Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and chief thug of Iraq) supporting them. Tim Arango (New York Times) broke that story:
In supporting Asaib al-Haq, Mr. Maliki has apparently made the risky calculation that by backing some Shiite militias, even in secret, he can maintain control over the country’s restive Shiite population and, ultimately, retain power after the next national elections, which are scheduled for next year. Militiamen and residents of Shiite areas say members of Asaib al-Haq are given government badges and weapons and allowed freedom of movement by the security forces.
As cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr notes, the League of Righteous is working for Nouri's government.
The violence continues today in Iraq. NINA notes that a fahter and sun were kidnapped in Salaheddin Province by men "wearing military uniforms."
In addition, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Mohammed Qoja (assistant to the Governor of Salaheddin Province) survived an assassination attempt which left 3 bodyguards dead (two more are missing), a Baghdad suicide bomber claimed the lives of 5 Iraqi soldiers and left twelve more injured, Sahwa leader Sheikh Saleh al-Dulaimi was shot dead leaving his Ramadi home, a Baquba roadside bombing left three people injured, 1 person was shot dead outside his Baquba home,a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life, a bombing near a Baghdad grocery store claimed 1 life and left four more injured, another Bahgdad bombing near a grocery store left eight people injured, a Tikrit armed attack left 1 police officer dead and his son injured, a Ramadi armed attack left 3 people dead and one police officer injured, and a police shot dead 2 suspects in Ramadi,
Supposedly, Parliamentary elections will take place April 30th. Yesterday All Iraq News quoted MP Jawad al-Hasnawi stating, "I do not think that Maliki will get the third term as the PM of Iraq due to the current situations and the security deterioration in addition to the floods." Mustafa Habib (Niqash) examined the political situation in Iraq last Thursday:
As political parties prepare for upcoming general elections, some very important alliances are falling apart. Shiite Muslim parties allied in the current governing coalition led by PM Nouri-al-Maliki say they will campaign alone - and they won’t promise al-Maliki another term. Amid a surge in sectarian violence, could the country finally be entering a post-sectarian political era?
Prominent Shiite Muslim politicians in Baghdad have confessed that there is one major reason why the previously strong alliance of Shiite Muslim parties is breaking up. This alliance was what allowed current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form his ruling coalition, the State of Law bloc. But now, as political parties start negotiating partnerships and jockeying for position ahead of the upcoming general elections, scheduled for April 2014, the formerly strong Shiite Muslim alliances have fallen apart.
A special meeting was held in Baghdad on Nov. 18 at which all member parties of al-Maliki’s alliance were present. A statement was issued afterwards declaring, “Shiite Muslim parties are enthusiastic about competing in the coming elections together”. But this seems to have been spin: The reality on the ground is very different.
“The State of Law bloc has asked that all other parties that want to enter into an alliance with it agree ahead of elections that if they win, the future Prime Minister will come from the Dawa party and that that party will not nominate anyone other than Nouri al-Maliki,” a senior politician, who did not want to be named, told NIQASH. “This is why the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Sadrist bloc are avoiding any such alliance.”
The strongest Shiite Muslim parties in Iraq are al-Maliki’s Dawa party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, or ISCI, headed by cleric Ammar al-Hakim and the Sadrist bloc, headed by another cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. There are also other minor Shiite Muslim parties such as the National Reform Trend headed by former Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and the Islamic Virtue Party, or Fadhila, headed by controversial Najaf-based cleric, Mohammed Musa al-Yaqoubi.
Both the Sadrist bloc and the ISCI seem firm about their intentions not to enter into an alliance with al-Maliki’s party again. Both al-Hakim and al-Sadr have been critical of al-Maliki’s government, with al-Sadr being very harsh, very publicly and al-Hakim tending to be quietly critical.
the stars and stripes
leo shane iii
the new york times