Edwards adamantly denied in the televised interview that he was the father of the baby and said he never asked any of his wealthy donors to support his mistress or his baby.
"I have never asked anybody to pay a dime of money. Never been told that any money has been paid. Nothing has been done at my request," Edwards told ABC News' Bob Woodruff.
Jo-Ann Armao (Washington Post) probably speaks for many when she wonders:
As more sordid details emerge in the trial of former U.S. senator John Edwards (D), one question lingers: Why on earth did this man, who had so much going for him, risk everything — including a shot at the presidency of the United States — to have an affair with a woman best described as unpredictable? It’s hard not to wonder, as details are being recounted in a North Carolina courtroom of the frantic efforts to stash Edwards’s pregnant mistress from his dying wife (and the rest of the world) and how Edwards hit up a 101-year-old heiress for more money even as he was being investigated for campaign finance violations (for which he is now on trial).
Like most womanizers, Mr. Edwards hates women. We have seen that in the trial. And we learned that today. ABC News reports this of Leo Hindry, campaign advisor, taking the stand:
On Jan. 3, 2008, the night Obama won the Iowa caucuses, Edwards ordered Hindery to contact Sen. Tom Daschle, an Obama adviser. Edwards wanted to team up with Obama, trading his endorsement for the vice-president slot early in the campaign to strike a death blow to Clinton.
Daschle questioned the Edwards' campaign reasoning for broaching the topic with Obama following the first contest of the campaign and on the night Obama was savoring victory, but brought the proposal to his candidate. Obama rejected the deal.
He wanted to destroy Hillary, "to strike a death blow to Clinton." Not at all surprising considering his attitude towards women.
Millard Grimes (Athens Banner-Herald) points out how Mr. Edwards ensured Barack Obama's victory after the press ignored The National Enquirer's October 2007 scoop (revealing Mr. Edwards was having an affair with Ms. Hunter):
But when other media failed to confirm the article, Edwards continued his campaign. In January 2008, he came in second in the Iowa caucus with 32 percent of the votes. Barack Obama was first with about 38 percent of the votes, and Hillary Clinton was third with 31 percent.
The Iowa result was obviously influenced by Edwards’ presence on the ballot, and Iowa gave Obama the crucial momentum he needed to eventually become the nominee and then president.
At the time of the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton held a huge lead over Obama in national polling and was the winner the following week in the New Hampshire primary. Had Edwards left or been forced out of the race when the first revelations of his affair were revealed, Clinton would almost surely have led in Iowa, or perhaps another Democratic candidate would have entered the race and Obama would be a footnote in history.
The media, John Edwards, and even Elizabeth Edwards, by their silence, influenced the eventual presidential winner.
A moment of national shame.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Thursday,
May 10, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri has plenty of money
to spend on some things (none apparently on basic services), Nouri
targets academia again, the political crisis continues, a meet-up
excludes Nouri, Josh Rogin expose the White House spin on the release of
a prisoner suspected of killing 5 US service members, and more.
Nouri
al-Maliki's Iraq still can't provide more than six hours of electricity
a day or potable water in most parts of the country but Al Mada reports
the government has announced they will spend $50 million over the next
three years to launch a satellite into space. According to a press
release issued by the Ministry of Communications' Amir al-Bayati the
government seems to see itself in a satellite competition with Israel.
While Nouri frets over satellites, he still can't provide needed
sanitation. Alsumaria reports
that a Karbala garbge dump borders residential areas resulting in
people being exposed to waste and fumes and to disease and germs. Dr.
Ahmed Haidari states he is seeing respiratory issues -- including some
breathing problems -- as well as skin and eye issues. Residents
complain that the smell is akin to that of rotting corpses. As Michael Peel (Financial Times of London) observes,
"Iraq's economic story after more than four decades of dictatorship and
almost nine years of US occupation is a contradictory one of oil boom
heavy debts and chronic problems with basic services."
Meanwhile Kitabat reports
on an art exhibit in Amman, Jordan which focuses on Iraqi refugees and
how the International Organization for Migration's Mike Bellinger hopes
the exhibit will bring attention to the continued Iraqi refugee crisis.
The Iraq War created the largest refugee crisis in the MidEast since
1948. Millions have been displaced internally, millions have left the
country. Concerns over the crisis really began with the ethnic cleansing
of 2006 and 2007; however, the term "brain drain" had already been in
use for years by then and referred to the Iraqi professionals who fled
the country due to direct threats as well as the violence. This resulted
in what Dr. Souad al-Azzawi (Beyond Educide) has termed
"educide" ("a composite of education and genocide to refer to the
genocide of the educated segments of the Iraqi society") and Dr.
al-Azzawi notes:
During
the American occupation of Iraq, well-trained professors, often
graduates of highly qualified American or European universities, were
replaced by pro-occupation young freshly graduated faculty members. This
policy is pursued with grimness by the current puppet government.
Educide is still going on.
The minister of high education Ali Aladeeb turned the Iraqi universities into sectarian show-offs. No real attendance of classes, no real learning and teaching processes, and no real scientific advancements. All what he cares about is turning Iraqi universities and youth into sectarian institutes that look like Iranian regime revolutionaries.
The minister of high education Ali Aladeeb turned the Iraqi universities into sectarian show-offs. No real attendance of classes, no real learning and teaching processes, and no real scientific advancements. All what he cares about is turning Iraqi universities and youth into sectarian institutes that look like Iranian regime revolutionaries.
And it continues. Dr. Souad al-Azzawi (Beyond Educide) explains
last week Nouri ordered the arrest of Baghdad College of Economical
Sciences' Professor Muhammad Taqa who has been in his post since 1996
and is widely published and the author of six books. Professor Taqa was
born in Mosul in 1948, received his doctorate in economics in Germany
and is a member of the Iraqi Economics Society and the Union of Arab
Economists. All Iraqi News notes
that the political movement Iraqiya has decried the arrest and quotes
spokesperson Khadija al-Wa'ily stating, "The Movement warned from the
arbitrary arrests according to malicious charges which means that the
democracy is no longer available and replaced by the dictatorship. The
Professor, Mohammed Taqa was arrested by a military force which is
considered as evidence on the governmental terrorism where the
terrorists must be arrested rather than the national figures such as
Taqa." Azzaman reports
that "both students and legislators" have protested the arrest and the
news outlet notes, "No reasons are given for the arrest and the security
forces who stormed his office are declining comments." MP Abdudhiyab
al-Ujaili heads Parliament's Higher Education Commission and he notes,
"The arrest of Professor Taqa is a slap in the face of our efforts to
persuade academics who fled the country to return home. There was even
no warrant or order by the judicial authorities to carry out the
arrest." Today at Beyond Educide, an Iraqi professor explains how the academic system is being destroyed by the government:
The most important indications of the higher education collapse could be generally summarized as follows:
1- The most significant indication is assigning the Ministry of Higher Education to a person who has no academic qualifications, whose feet never stepped in campus, only after he was appointed as a minister. This appointment was not based on any skill or efficiency, rather on being a member of the governing political party, and on his Iranian origin (his mother for example does not speak Arabic), and on being Shiite. Of course there is nothing wrong with being of this or that origin, or being from this or that sectarian group, but this identity has become an exclusive passport for anyone to assume any (high) position, especially for none Iraqis.
2- Academic, scientific and administrative positions in public universities are assigned and shared according to sectarian affiliations, not expertise or efficiency. All the universities' presidents and faculties' deans are from a specific sectarian group; and their academic and administrative assistants are from other group in order to achieve a supposedly balanced share in power positions. Thus the criterion for appointment is not academic, but exclusively sectarian.
3- Admissions in universities are again based on sectarian affiliation, especially in post graduate studies. Norms of admission that are based on academic record are totally neglected, and exceptions have become the rule. In addition to that, channels of admission are numerous now: seats for political prisoners of the previous regime, seats for families of the martyrs(1) , seats for graduates of religious schools in Iran, seats for deserters during the Iraqi-Iranian war who sought refuge in Iran (the latter were rewarded pieces of land and 10 million Iraqi dinars- more than $10.000). What remains of seats are assigned to what is called "special" admission, which means those who pay higher and who are admitted outside the rules that are based on academic record. What remains of seats, if at all, are assigned to "real" students who compete on honest rules of marks and academic reports. The result of all these discriminations is that opportunities are given to those who do not deserve them, and are normally not interested in academic research, while serious students are deprived.
4- There is also a familiar criterion now, which is (exception from rules) in other areas, apart from the exceptional admission. For example: transfer from one university to another, or transfer from one specialization to another(2) . To explain this point I tell you the following story that took place to me personally: A person came to me asking that his nephew be transferred from X University to another one. I apologized saying that: we all know that this is impossible, because transferring a student from (an academically) lesser to a higher university is not allowed according to the rules, and advised him to look for another college that admits his nephew's academic degree (marks). Few days later, the uncle came back to me saying (sarcastically): "so you are a well known professor but you could not do such a 'small' thing. I told the butcher in our neighborhood about this story, and he just made a call by his mobile, and my nephew is immediately transferred to the college of Administration and Economics". May be this story can tell about the collapse of the whole system.
5- The public universities are "distributed" between the political parties who control, make decisions and admit students in them. Baghdad University for example is allocated to the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, while Al-Mustansiriah U. is allocated to the Sadr Group. The Nehrein U. (which was one of the most prestigious academic institutions) is allocated to Al-Da'wa party that totally destroyed it.
1- The most significant indication is assigning the Ministry of Higher Education to a person who has no academic qualifications, whose feet never stepped in campus, only after he was appointed as a minister. This appointment was not based on any skill or efficiency, rather on being a member of the governing political party, and on his Iranian origin (his mother for example does not speak Arabic), and on being Shiite. Of course there is nothing wrong with being of this or that origin, or being from this or that sectarian group, but this identity has become an exclusive passport for anyone to assume any (high) position, especially for none Iraqis.
2- Academic, scientific and administrative positions in public universities are assigned and shared according to sectarian affiliations, not expertise or efficiency. All the universities' presidents and faculties' deans are from a specific sectarian group; and their academic and administrative assistants are from other group in order to achieve a supposedly balanced share in power positions. Thus the criterion for appointment is not academic, but exclusively sectarian.
3- Admissions in universities are again based on sectarian affiliation, especially in post graduate studies. Norms of admission that are based on academic record are totally neglected, and exceptions have become the rule. In addition to that, channels of admission are numerous now: seats for political prisoners of the previous regime, seats for families of the martyrs(1) , seats for graduates of religious schools in Iran, seats for deserters during the Iraqi-Iranian war who sought refuge in Iran (the latter were rewarded pieces of land and 10 million Iraqi dinars- more than $10.000). What remains of seats are assigned to what is called "special" admission, which means those who pay higher and who are admitted outside the rules that are based on academic record. What remains of seats, if at all, are assigned to "real" students who compete on honest rules of marks and academic reports. The result of all these discriminations is that opportunities are given to those who do not deserve them, and are normally not interested in academic research, while serious students are deprived.
4- There is also a familiar criterion now, which is (exception from rules) in other areas, apart from the exceptional admission. For example: transfer from one university to another, or transfer from one specialization to another(2) . To explain this point I tell you the following story that took place to me personally: A person came to me asking that his nephew be transferred from X University to another one. I apologized saying that: we all know that this is impossible, because transferring a student from (an academically) lesser to a higher university is not allowed according to the rules, and advised him to look for another college that admits his nephew's academic degree (marks). Few days later, the uncle came back to me saying (sarcastically): "so you are a well known professor but you could not do such a 'small' thing. I told the butcher in our neighborhood about this story, and he just made a call by his mobile, and my nephew is immediately transferred to the college of Administration and Economics". May be this story can tell about the collapse of the whole system.
5- The public universities are "distributed" between the political parties who control, make decisions and admit students in them. Baghdad University for example is allocated to the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, while Al-Mustansiriah U. is allocated to the Sadr Group. The Nehrein U. (which was one of the most prestigious academic institutions) is allocated to Al-Da'wa party that totally destroyed it.
Those are five of 14 examples.
And so it goes in Nouri's Iraq, where everything crumbles and collapses
including justice -- even if so many Western outlets 'forget' to inform
the world of what's taking place. Kitabat reports
that the trial against Tareq al-Hashemi that was supposed to start last
Thursday but was then postponed to this Thursday has been postponed to
next Tuesday. This delay is said to be due to an appeal Hashemi's
attorneys have filed to move the case from the Criminal Court to the
Federal Court. Currently al-Hashemi is in Turkey. Al Rafidayn notes that he has the support of the Turkish government. Alsumaria reports
that a number of Iraqi politicians and triabal leaders protested
outside the Turksih consulate to lodge their demand that Turkey hand
Tareq al-Hashemi over to Baghdad. That's not at all surprising or
reflective of anything. In the 2010 elections, with over 800,000
voters, Basra awarded almost two-thirds of their seats (14) to Nouri's
State of Law (al-Hashemi's Iraqiya won only 3 seats in the province). The Journal of Turkish Weekly quotes
Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stating, "We gave him all
kinds of support on this issue and we will continue to do so." Deputy
Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag is quoted stating, "We would not hand in
someone who we support." Press TV reports
Nouri "lashed out at his Turkish counterpart, saying Erdogan's remarks
did not show 'mutual respect'." Nouri's not thrilled with Turkey's
response to the red alert so he took time out from terrorizing academics
to make a little statement.
The Journal of Turkish Weekly actually explains
the INTERPOL Red Notice posted about Tareq al-Hashemi, "Sources said
that red notices were based on national warrants, and published at the
request of a member state as long as the request did not violate
Interpol regulations. Sources noted that red bulletin was not an
international warrant of arrest, adding that there was not a certain
verdict about al-Hashemi. Sources stressed that al-Hashemi was still
the vice president of Iraq and he had diplomatic immunity."
Al Mada reports
that the National Alliance held a meeting yesterday that they
self-described as important and that they state was part of their
efforts to resolve the country's political crisis; however, State of Law
was not invited to the meet-up. The National Alliance is a Shi'ite
grouping. Among the members are the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council
(Ammar al-Hakim is the leader), Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, the National
Reform Trend (Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the leader), the Bard Organization
(Hadi al-Amir is the leader) and the Iraqi National Congress (led by
Ahmed Chalabi). The National Alliance backed Nouri al-Maliki for prime
minister in 2010. Nouri's political slate was State of Law. It came in
second in the March 2010 elections. Iraqiya, led by Ayad Allawi, came
in first. Eight months of gridlock followed those elections
(Political Stalemate I) as a result of Nouri refusing to honor the
Constitution and his belief that -- with the backing of Iran and the
White House -- he could bulldoze his way into a second term. The Erbil
Agreement allowed Political Stalemate I to end. Nouri's refusal to
honor the agreement created the ongoing Political Stalemate II. Marina
Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq"
(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) notes the events since
mid-December as well as what kicked off Political Stalemate II:
Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But there is
more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
The Erbil Agreement allowed Nouri to have a second term as prime minister. That was a concession other political blocs made. In exchange, Nouri made concessions as well. These were written up and signed off on. But once Nouri got his second term, he refused to honor the Erbil Agreement. Since the summer of 2011, the Kurds have been calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr joined that call. As last month drew to a close, there was a big meet-up in Erbil with various political blocs participating. Nouri al-Maliki was not invited. Among those attending were KRG President Massoud Barzani, Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. Since December 21st, Talabani and al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national convention to resolve the political crisis.
Nouri spent the first two months dismissing the need for one, arguing that it shouldn't include everyone, arguing about what it was called, saying it should just be the three presidencies -- that would Jalal Talabani, Nouri al-Maliki and Osama al-Nujaifi -- and offering many more road blocs. As March began, Nouri's new excuse was that it had to wait until after the Arab League Summit (March 29th). The weekend before the summit, Talabani forced the issue by announcing that the convention would be held April 5th. Nouri quickly began echoing that publicly. However, April 4th it was announced the conference was off. Nouri's State of Law took to the press to note how glad they were about that.
Today, Alsumaria reports that Nouri al-Maliki is stating that a national meet-up is necessary to resolve the issues and that this cannot be done via backdoor deals or under the table agreements. He declared the Constitution dead and said that it needs to be revived. He also argues that he is all for a meet up but others have something to hide and they are attempting to prevent a meeting. Nouri also claims that he is looking for a real partnership.
Earlier this week, Nouri al-Maliki announced that every home in Iraq could have one pistol or one rifle. Alsumaria reports
that State of Law MP Shirwan Waeli is questioning the wisdom of the
decision and stating State of Law shouldn't be giving legitimacy to
arming people and that, futhermore, it suggests that the government is
unable to protect Iraqis so it is now the direct responsibility of the
citizens to protect themselves. Supporters argue that the move was an
attempt to limit guns and that the one-gun rule will greatly reduce the
number of firearms in each home. Alsumaria notes
that objections to Nouri's one-gun policy are also coming from the
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Kurdistan Alliance. Ala
Talabani, spokesperson for the Kurdistan Alliance, spoke publicly today
about the issue and declared that they fear making each household
register their one gun with the nearest police station in their areas
will provide temptation for corruption. Talabani also states that they
fear the rule could lead to an increase in so-called 'honor' killings as
well as an increase in domestic violence.
In today's reported violence, AFP reports that 7 corpses were discovered between Fallujah and Ramadi ("all handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head").
In Mosul, Alsumaria reports,
a woman who had issues with her husband has turned up dead and the
assertion is that she hanged herself however an autopsy is being
performed and no official cause of death has yet been declared.
Turning to the US, Tuesday the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on mental health care staffing.
Joy
Ilem: We must stress the urgency of this commitment. Sadly, we have
learned from our experiences in other wars, notably in the post-Vietnam
period, that psychological reactions to combat exposure are not
unusual: they are common. If they are not readily addressed at onset,
they can easily compound and become chronic and lifelong. The costs
mount in personal, family, emotional, medical, financial and social
damage to those who have honorably served their nation, and to society
in general. Delays or failures in addressing these problems can result
in self-destructive acts, including suicide, job and family loss,
incarceration and homelessness. Currently, we see the pressing need for
mental health services for many of our returning war veterans,
particularly early intervention services for substance-use disorder and
evidence-based care for those with PTSD, depression and other
consequences of combat exposure. As we have learned from experience,
when failures occur, the consequences can be catastrophic. We have an
opportunity to save a generation of veterans, and help them heal from
war, but decisive action is essential.
That's from the third panel. The second panel was noted in Tuesday's snapshot, in Kat's "Congress Member Gone Wild" and in "Congress is supposed to provide oversight."
The witnesses were Dr. Nicole Sawyer,Group Health Cooperative's Diana
Birkett Rakow, Dr. James Schuster and Health Net Federal Services'
Thomas Carrato. The first panel was Shinseki and the VA's Robert
Petzel, Mary Schohn, Antonette Zeiss, Annie Spiczak and, from the Office
of Inspector General, John Daigh and Linda Halliday. That panel was
covered in yesterday's snapshot. The third panel was the Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux and Wounded Warrior Project's Ralph Ibson and we're going to note a little of that panel today.
In her prepared statement, Alethea Predeoux observed:
On
April 25, 2012, the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee held a hearing
entitled, "VA Mental Health Care: Evaluating Access and Assessing
Care." During this hearing a veteran and former VA mental health
professional testified that too often the VA mental health system places
a burdensome emphasis on having staff meet numerical performance goals
at the expense of providing veterans with the best care possible. PVA
believes that VA leadership must make certain that policies and
regulations are developed to provide safe, quality health services for
veterans, without compromising the professional integrity of the
qualified providers who deliver the care. VA policies must be pragmatic
and attainable, and improve the delivery of care by creating benchmarks
and measures that help assess strengths and weaknesses of health care
services and delivery.
And from Joy Ilem's prepared remarks we'll note this:
The
OIG conducted its own analysis and projected that in VHA only 49
percent of patients (versus 95 percent) received full evaluations, to
include patient history, diagnosis, and treatment plan, within 14 days
and for the remainder of patients, it took 50 days on average.
Additionally, VHA could not always provide existing patients their
treatment appointments within 14 days of their desired dates. DAV began
an informal, anonymous online survey for veterans in December 2011,
asking about their experience seeking and receiving VA mental health
services. To date, nearly 1,050 veterans from all eras of service have
responded to the survey, and our findings were close to those reported
by the OIG on waiting times for follow up appointments. A complete
report of DAV's survey results can be found on line at http://www.standup4vets.org.
The OIG report also noted that several mental health providers whom
inspectors interviewed had requested desired dates for patients for
follow up care based on their personal schedule availabilities rather
than the patients' requests, or based on observed clinical need in some
cases. Likewise, VHA schedulers did not consistently follow VHA policy
or procedures but scheduled return clinic appointments based on the next
available appointment slots, while recording the patients' "desired"
and actual dates as if they were compliant with VA policies. Since the
OIG had found a similar practice in previous audits nearly seven years
earlier, and given that VHA had not addressed the long-standing problem,
OIG urged VHA to reassess its training, competency and oversight
methods and to develop appropriate controls to collect reliable and
accurate appointment data for mental health patients. The OIG
concluded that the VHA "... patient scheduling system is broken, the
appointment data is inaccurate and schedulers implement inconsistent
practices capturing appointment information." These deficiencies in VHA
scheduling system have been documented in numerous reports. After more
than a decade, VA's Office of Information and Technology has still not
completed development of a state-of-the-art scheduling system that can
effectively manage the scheduling process or provide accurate tracking
and reporting.
[. . .]
I
must also report that many VA facility executives seem to tacitly
support current bureaucratic practices in HR as a means to conserve
facility funding and stretching health care budgets. Almost every VA
facility operates a "resources committee" or similar function to examine
every vacancy occurring and then to require selecting officials to
justify in writing (and sometimes by making personal appearances and
appeals before the Committee) why vacancies should be filled at all.
This grueling process that constitutes a "soft freeze," can consume
months, all the while allowing the facility to "save" the personal
services funds that would have been paid in salary and benefits
associated with those unencumbered positions. It is common practice for
resource committees to deny authorization to fill mental health and
substance positions, creating "ghost" positions that are listed in the
Service FTEE allocations but can never be recruited. We understand
that in many locations, the 1,600 newly allocated FTEE will not even be
sufficient to fill these vacancies. We believe, certainly now in the
face of inadequate mental health access, that such practices should be
halted. With the massive and rising unmet needs being reported today,
VA must become very sensitized and make every effort to quickly fill all
mental health provider vacancies and their support staff positions as a
high priority in HR offices. VHA Central Office and VA Medical Center
leadership should be accountable to ensure that this occurs.
The second paragraph above, the one on "ghost positions," was explored in the questioning.
Chair
Jeff Miller: Miss Ilem, I was struck in your testimony where you said
it was a common practice for resource committees to deny authorization
to fill mental health and substance positions creating ghost positions
that are listed in the service FTEe allocations but can never be
recruited and we understand that in many locations, the 1900 newly
allocated FTEEs will not even be sufficient to fill these vacancies.
Would you elaborate on the idea of ghost positions?
Joy
Illem: Sure. You know as part of preparing for the hearing, we reach
out to different mental health providers around the system and we feel
that their input is extremely important. They're the people that are on
the ground facing the challenges that they are. And these are just
some of the information that a couple of folks have shared with us. And
we've heard that repeatedly. In the independent budget, I know we've
worked on some HR issues and asking, "What are these very long delays?
Why is it taking so long?" And it seems to be maybe perhaps certain
facilities because of budget -- budget concerns -- that is a way to
delay hiring someone although it's an authorized position.
Chair
Jeff Miller: I'd like to ask if any of you have heard reports that
women whose combat experience is termed "unofficial" are being barred
from group therapy sessions dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress because
they are reserved for combat veterans? The first question, has it been
brought to your attention? If so, do you think that VA needs to change
the elegibility requirements for group therapy to include all patients
diagnosed with combat related PTS? And I ask any of you who have heard
of that, if you would comment. If you haven't, that's fine too.
Joy
Ilem: have not heard that regarding women veterans specifically but
certainly this has been an ongoing problem that we hear. There's a
number of films that have brought to light the recognition or the lack
of recognition that women are participating in combat or their exposure
to combat is very -- is very real. And when they're coming back, they
need the same type of services as male veterans. And often times we're
told that "I'm not believed" or "They just don't understand. They just
can't comprehend that as a woman I've been exposed to these, you know,
realities of combat. So I think VA needs to work very hard and I know
there's a number of ongoing research projects in women's health
specifically about combat-related PTSD. I mean there's some small groups
and ongoing research that we've been very closely monitoring. And we
think that we're going to see more and more of that and that it
absolutely has to be adjusted to accomodate women veterans as all
veterans.
Chair Jeff Miller: Thank you. Miss Predeoux, have you heard that?
Alethea
Predeoux: The same as my colleague Joy. It has not been reported to
me but I've heard it through attending other sessions involving women
veterans and if that is the case with regard to VA policy than I whole
heartedly do think that the policy needs to be inclusive of all veterans
regardless of gender and generation.
Chair Jeff Miller: Mr. Ibson.
Ralph
Ibson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the responses we got in our
surveys suggested that was the experience at that particular facility.
I would not be able to represent that that was widespread, sir.
Ideally,
we'll note the hearing again in tomorrow's snapshot. If so, the plan
is to note a line of questioning US House Rep Timothy Walz pursued.
This isn't that line but the brief exchange is worth noting.
US
House Rep Timothy Walz: In this country there's 340 people for every
medical doctor. There's 3400 for every psychologist or mental health
practioner. We're graduating about 18,000 to 20,000 doctors per year
-- and we're already experiencing a great shortage in general
practioners. We're graduating about 4,000 psychologists. It's just
impossible to keep up with those numbers. I think it goes back to what
Ms. Brown and others were talking about, of how we build this model to
collaborate to try and draw upon the resources that we have. There's
both a shortage in the private sector and as well as the VA. My concern
is, and I'll start with you Mr. Ibson, and maybe just ask each of you.
I for one do believe there's an opportunity here to use some other
people outside the system. I've seen it happen. I also know that one of
the problems is how do we ensure that these providers are providing
evidence based care and the outcomes that we want to see too? Because
if we're going to ask the VA to take tax payer dollars and fund it out
then we're going to be asked to be accountable for every penny of that
just like we're doing today . How do we know that we're going to get
the care there also if we have to draw upon outside resources? I don't
know, Ralph, if you've had any thought on that or how that moves forward
because I think -- I just don't see the numbers here for the ability
on us to deliver care because there's just not that many mental health
care providers for the need that's going to be there. We can't even
keep our head above water and it's going to get worse.
Ralph
Ibson: Well at the risk of ducking your question, I did want to
observe the importance of your earlier emphasis and re-emphasis on
outcomes because it is one thing that VA is not measuring. And given a
department that's so committed to being a leader, this is an area where
leadership is desperately needed in terms of developing measures of
outcomes because utlimately -- utlimately having performance measures
which-which give us indicators of inputs and through puts and numbers
and percentages but don't tell us whether veterans are getting better
are not going to advance -- are not going to advance our veterans well
being.
Finally, Foreign Policy has a scoop. For background, US Senator Kelly Ayotte's office issued this statement earlier this week:
WASHINGTON,
DC - U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, released the following statement today regarding an
Iraqi court's ruling to release Ali Mussa Daqduq - a Hezbollah member
who was transferred to Iraqi custody when U.S. forces withdrew last
December:
"This confirms my fears that
transferring Daqduq to Iraqi custody would result in his release. Daqduq
is a member of Hezbollah who served as a key liaison with Iran. He
trained Iraqi extremists who targeted U.S. troops, and he is suspected
of planning the operation in 2007 that resulted in the deaths of five
U.S. military personnel. If Daqduq is released, there is little doubt
that he'll resume terrorist activities. This case highlights the need
for a designated terrorist detention facility to detain, interrogate,
and try foreign terrorists."
In addition to
questioning senior Defense Department officials about Daqduq in Senate
Armed Services Committee hearings last year, Senator Ayotte joined 19
other Senators in sending a letter to Secretary Panetta on July 21,
2011. The letter expressed the Senators' concerns that transferring
Daqduq to Iraqi custody might result in his release and a return to
terrorist activities.
This week Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported
this morning, that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqdug
of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five
U.S. troops." what are we talking about? This was "the Special Groups
network," US term, which later became the League of Righteous. For more
on that, refer to [PDF format warning] Marisa Cochrane's "Asaib Ahl al-Haq and the Khazali Special Groups Network"
(Institute for the Study of War). The five Americans killed? They
were last seriously reported on when US President Barack Obama released
some of the alleged murderers of the 5 Americans to make England
happy. That was back in June 9, 2009:
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."
No one ever did answer for it and, as last year drew to a close, the last suspected murderer of the 5 Americans was released by the US military. Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
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."
No one ever did answer for it and, as last year drew to a close, the last suspected murderer of the 5 Americans was released by the US military. Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
This week, Jack Healy and Charlie Savage (New York Times) reported,
"Although military officials said he confessed freely and that his
interrogation had not included any harsh techniques, his statements to
American military interrogators would probably be deemed inadmissible in
Iraqi court. But the Obama administration had hoped that he would
instead face charges of illegally entering Iraq, a crime that could
result in a 10-year prison sentence." And
Kitabat reported that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why the suspect was released. It's also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility. However, the White House insisted that they knew best and they had these assurances.
Kitabat reported that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why the suspect was released. It's also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility. However, the White House insisted that they knew best and they had these assurances.
Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports
today on the White House spin effort to make the above seem normal. He
does so via "the internal talking points prepared by the National
Security Council and approved by Deputy National Security Advisor Denis
McDonough just yesterday."
Finally, on
what the administration is doing now, the talking points say only, "As
with other terrorists who have committed crimes against Americans, we
will continue to pursue all legal means to ensure that he is punished
for his crimes."
That's not going to be
enough for the U.S. lawmakers and officials who are angry that the
administration didn't figure out a way to keep Daqduq in U.S. custody
[and are w]orried that he will return to the battlefield soon.
iraq
