Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, May 21, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, one of the protest organizers in Anbar is assassinated, Nouri has a 'big shake up' (AFP) that amounts to nothing, Zebari puts on brave face for American TV, a public servant announces (through her attorney) she will plead the Fifth in a Congressional hearing tomorrow (IRS scandal), Congress discusses pending veterans legislation  and if the White House is being fully honest about Benghazi why have they not released the State Dept's September 14th communications with NSS?


Starting with The War on the First Amendment. As disclosed I know and like Attorney General Eric Holder.  We're not highlighting a radio program that can be seen as calling Holder out.  We aren't highlighting it and linking to it.  Not because I'm trying to cover for Eric but because if you're wrong and I know you're wrong we don't include you.

Someone billed as a journalist declared of Holder's decision to recuse himself, "He's talking about how he has regular interactions with the press and he did not think it would be appropriate for him to be the head of this investigation Yet that doesn't really make any sense . . ."  No, that wouldn't make sense. 

That's also not what Holder told Congress.  We covered it last week  with the "Iraq snapshot" and "Eric Holder's childish tantrum," Ava covered it with "Biggest embarrassment at House Judiciary hearing," Wally with "Competency tests for Congress? (Wally)," Kat with "Outstanding participant in the House Judiciary hearing?," and Marcia with "The shameful Eric Holder." 

I see the 'expert'  covered the hearing too.  And I read over his coverage and couldn't stop groaning.  It's beyond wrong.   It raises issues that it never resolves (although they were resolved in the hearing) and it's just incredibly wrong.  We could spend a whole snapshot on how wrong it is.  We won't. 

I talked to two friends who cover Justice to find out how this could be confusing?  Before he testified to Congress, Holder held a press conference, the day before.  During that press conference, I'm told, he stated his reasoning for recusal at the start of the press conference: It was because he faced questioning from the FBI  (June 2012).  Later, during that press conference he repeated that over and over and "at one point, made an offhand comment" in the press conference (one reporter, backed up by the other) about how he does interact with the press.  Did either of them see that comment as a reason for recusal?  No.

He told Congress why he recused himself.  Our 'expert' went on the radio and left out the reason Holder gave the Congress and the reason he stated repeatedly in the press conference.  If 'expert' wants to pursue that angle (Holder said he was in "frequent contact with the media" in the conference), have at it.  But don't ignore the reason that Holder recused himself -- either out of your own ignorance or your inability to tell the truth.  Reading the coverage the 'expert' did (it's glorified Tweeting) of the hearing last week, I can say that will not highlight that 'expert' ever again.  I do not trust him.  I'm not sure if he's stupid or just dishonest.  But his coverage is appalling.  We will pick this topic up on Saturday night.

If Holder's guilty of something, he will be called out here.  I've already made a point to call him out for being partisan and hostile when appearing before Congress last week.  I'm not going to play favorites.  But I'm also not going to distort what Eric says or include information about him that I know to be false.

Last week, The War on the First Amendment's big revelations were that the Justice Dept had secretly seized the phone records of a 167-year-old news institution.  Phone records for April and May 2012 were secretly seized.  Tuesday, May 14th, Today, AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe (link is video) and spoke about this assault on the First Amendment with hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski and guests journalists Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) and  Mike Barnicle.

Kathleen Carroll:  Well obviously, we're distressed that the Justice Dept felt the need to seize our records and not tell us about it and certainly distressed as our CEO said in his protest to the Justice Dept that the scope of the inquiry's so huge.  More than 100 journalists for the AP work at the places whose phone numbers and phone records were seized by the Justice Dept.


This week's revelation is that the Justice Dept targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen.  The ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains the problems that emerge with the targeting of Rosen:

 
In recognition of the special status of news gathering under the First Amendment, a federal law—the Privacy Protection Act—bars federal investigators from demanding materials from reporters unless there is probable cause to believe that the reporter himself has committed a crime. That's exactly what the FBI claimed here—that "Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of [the Espionage Act], as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator." (The Espionage Act is the primary statute used to target "leaks," and bars the unauthorized disclosure of classified information if the person doing the disclosing has reason to know disclosure could harm the United States).
What's astonishing here is that never before has the government argued that simple newsgathering—that is, asking a source to comment on a news story—is itself illegal. That would, quite literally, make virtually any question by a reporter implicating classified information a potential felony. The logic behind the FBI's warrant application would extend even to a reporter asking a question at a public press briefing at the CIA, Pentagon, or State Department. If the question is designed to elicit the disclosure of classified information, and prompts that disclosure, I don't see how the reporter couldn't be held responsible under the FBI's rationale.
Additionally, the FBI was able to keep the existence of the warrant secret from Rosen because it argued he'd committed a crime. That's similar to what happened with the AP, where the Department of Justice presumably invoked the exception to the notice requirement under DOJ guidelines, which allow for delay when notice could imperil the investigation. However, the delay provision is extremely strong medicine, because delaying notice means that the news outlet is unable to go to a court to challenge the request before the records are turned over. Consequently, the delay provision opens the door to significant abuse, as government agents have an incentive to delay notice because it allows them to avoid going in front of a judge to justify their request.



Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 564 violent deaths so far this month and they have 11 more days in the month to count.  Including today when Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Tarmiya suicide bomber claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers (seven more injured), a Tuk Hurmato car bombing which claimed 5 lives (forty-three more injured), and 3 Kirkuk roadside bombings which claimed 6 lives (twenty-five more injured).  Mustafa Mahmoud, Isabel Coles and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) quote Kirkuk survivor Mahmoud Jumaa stating, "I heard the explosions, but never thought this place would be targeted since these animals have nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with sect, nothing to do with ethnicity or religion." Alsumaria notes that in Ramadi a leader of the ongoing demonstrations died from a car bombing.  NINA identifies him as Sheikh Malik al-Dulaimi and adds that he," along with other capable tribal chiefs of Anbar, took care of supplying tents, food and other requirements to the protestors in Ramadi."  Nouri issued no statement demanding that the killers responsible for Sheikh Malik al-Dulaimi be brought to justice.  Nouri issued no statement condemning the killing of al-Dulaimi.    Kareem Raheem (Reuters) counts over 40 dead from violence today.

The National notes:


First to blame for the increasing bloodshed, which killed at least 86 on Monday alone and 352 so far this month, is Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki.
"Mr Al Maliki failed to contain the rising sectarian tensions in the early stages, resorting instead to security solutions and rejecting dialogue with his opponents," the editorial noted.
Mr Al Maliki ignored the demands of residents in Anbar province, where the largest sit-ins and protests have been taking place.
A Shia Muslim, Mr Al Maliki is accused by Sunnis of being biased towards his sect in terms of official posts. The bomb and gun attacks on Monday targeted mainly Shia areas, including in the capital Baghdad.
In a statement reported yesterday, the Iraqi premier said: "I assure the Iraqi people that the [the militants] will not be able to bring us back to sectarian conflict," pledging an overhaul at the high and middle levels of his security apparatus following its failure to stop the attacks.
A statement like this shows how Mr Al Maliki is still "in denial", since the crisis is about political failure, rather than security flops, Al Quds Al Arabi argued.


 AFP makes much of Nouri's 'big shake up in security command' yet all they can list is that a someone over the security in the city of Baghdad lost his post.  Woah! What a shake up.  All Iraq News notes that's the only position changed (Lt Gen Abdul Amir Kamel will replace Lt Gen Ahmed Hashim).


Meanwhile Abbas al-Mahmadawi flaunts ignorance.  He's the Secretary General of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coalition.  (At one point, this was a term for Sahwa aka Sons of Iraq.)  According to Press TV, "Britain and the US are responsible for the growing number of bombings in Iraq because of their sales of fake bomb detects to the country, Secretary Genera of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coaltion Abbas Al Mahmadawi says."  England did not sell the 'magic' wands.  A British citizen did and the UK put him on trial, convicted him and sentenced him.

The US government did not sale any magic wands and no US citizen was in charge of that company.  I believe it was also the US press that first raised objections about the wands.  At the start of November 2009, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported on these 'bomb detectors' in use in Iraq: "The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works 'on the same principle as a Ouija board' -- the power of suggestion -- said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosive divining rod."


It's amazing that Abbas is too cowardly to blame Nouri al-Maliki.  From yesterday's snapshot:

 So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working?  No.  It was known before that.  May 11th,  Alsumaria reported  that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased anymore.  There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to answer questions.  He needs to.  But he has refused all calls so far -- despite the Constitution on this issue.  He continues to violate and ignore the Constitution.   Kitabat  also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here.  May 12th,   Alsumaria reported Parliament's Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of "top officials" involved.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander "Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs, which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the intelligence information."  May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands were still being used in Baghdad.


Nouri was told they didn't work and he ordered them anyway.  They're still being used -- and they don't work.

Wait, it gets better.

Al Mada reports that Nouri held a press conference today and announced that the magic wands work.  Back when Karim reported they were being used, I noted Nouri's plan to sue the maker just lost standing.  Any chance that it still had legal standing is now gone.  Nouri stood up and Baghdad and declared that the rip-off devices work.  That's money Iraq will now never get back.  It doesn't matter that they don't work.  Ignoring years of warnings, Nouri continues to use them.  It no longer matters, he's lost standing to sue.

What an idiot.  Dar Addustour has him insisting that these 'magic' wands can detect bombs 20 to 40% of the time.  No, they can't.  This was established in a court of law.  What an idiot.  Robert Booth (Guardian) reported May 2nd:

 McCormick sold 7,000 fake bomb detectors based on useless golf ball finders to the Iraqi government and other international agencies for prices ranging from £1,600 per unit to £19,000.
They cost McCormick less than $50 (£32) and police believe sales to Iraq alone were worth more than £55m, buying McCormick a mansion in Bath, holiday homes abroad and a yacht.
Judge Richard Hone told McCormick: "Your fraudulent conduct in selling so many useless devices for simply enormous profit promoted a false sense of security and in all probability materially contributed to causing death and injury to innocent individuals."

Get it? They didn't work.  They were never going to work.  They had nothing to do with bombs but were invented to be golf ball finders and were useless at even that.


Why didn't Nouri appear before Parliament today?  Because he has blood on his hands and he knows it.  Instead of getting honest, he's now insisting that the magic wands work.

Christiane Amanpour (Amanpour, CNN) spoke with Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari about the situation in Iraq and he stated, "The government has its own failing.  I'm not here to give you a rosy picture or to portray unrealistic picture.  But the country is not crashing."



Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujafi also held a press conference.  All Iraq News reports that  he called out Nouri for ordering State of Law MPs not to attend today's emergency session.  He calls it a violation of the Constitution.  National Iraqi News Agency notes that al-Nujaifi "added that there is no personal problem between him and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, confirming that the problem lies in the lack of respect from al-Maliki to the legislative authority."   Alsumaria reports State of Law is screaming for al-Nujaifi to resign. (State of Law is Nouri's political slate.  In the 2010 elections, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya beat State of Law.)  Alsumaria notes cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has weighed in but their brief report doesn't make clear on whose side. He apologizes to the Iraqi people for what is happening and blames government officials -- Iraqiya and State of Law both?  Nouri for calling for a boycott of the emergency session?   It's not clear.

Following yesterday's violence in Basra and Baghdad, the Iraq Times reports professors and teachers belonging to the National Alliance coalition are asking that Nouri be dismissed as prime minister as a result of the continued violence and unstable security.  Moqtada's bloc is part of the Shi'ite National Alliance (as is Nouri's State of Law).  The report notes an MP from Moqtada's bloc said Nouri needs to resign or appear before Parliament. He's been denounced for the way he's managed Iraqi security.  As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) has a column on the whole matter that strives for balance and notes that the Parliament was directly elected by the people (not true of the prime minister) and that Nouri should show respect for democracy and for the state institutions.


Meanwhile, Alsumaria reports prisoners at a Rifai prison are on a hunger strike over conditions at the prison and the inability of the judiciary to set court appearances. There is no mention of average wait of these prisoners but Iraqis have been waiting years for court appearances.  This has been a complaint by Iraqis for years now.  There has been no improvement.  Which is one of the reasons Nouri's Baghdad court shouldn't have grabbed ahold of investigating the Hawija massacre.  They have enough on their plate already.





May 10, 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner attempted to deceive the American people.  Fully aware that the Treasury Dept was about to issue an Inspector General report finding abuse, IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Division Lerner staged a fake 'honesty' session.  As Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) noted in his Fact Check Sunday, Lerner asked her friend "Celia Roady, a tax attoreny [. . .] to ask her a question about the targeting" of conservative groups" at an ABA conference.   Chip Reid (CBS News -- link is text and video) reported May 10th on the IRS targeting of political groups:

The IRS strongly denied the charges -- until Friday.
At a lawyers' conference in Washington, Lois Lerner, a senior IRS career employee who overseas tax exempt organizations, admitted that agency employees singled out particular groups for extra scrutiny using key words with political overtones.

Lerner staged the event, making a mockery of the ABA and the American people.

Friday,  the House Ways and Means held a hearing which Action IRS Commissioner Steve Miller testified at and we covered it in Friday's "Iraq snapshot" and "IRS: 'Not corrupt, just incompetent'," while Ava reported on it in "Guacamole and the IRS (Ava)," Wally in "Big lie revealed at House Ways and Means hearing," Kat in "The other Steve Miller appears before Congress," and Marcia in "No accountability for the IRS scandal,"  and we roundtabled on it with Dona for "Report on Congress."  A key exchange from the hearing:


 US House Rep. Thomas Young:  Mr. Miller I want to know why all of this happened. You and Ms. [Lois] Lerner said over the past week that IRS officials started targeting Americans for their political beliefs in March of  2010.  That was after observing a surge in applications for statuses 501 (c) (4) -- so that was your rationale. To support this claim, you both cited an increase of about 1500 in 2010 to nearly 35,000 in 2012.  But data contained in the IG audit says the targeting began in March 2010 before this uptick.  In fact, the audit also says, on page 3 that the number of 501 (c) (4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.   Mr. Miller, you said here today that you accept the IG's finding of facts --

 Steve Miller:  Mmm-hmmm.

 US House Rep. Thomas Young: How do you reconcile the facts I've just laid out showing no uptick in 501 (c) (4) applications with your stated motivation for targeting conservative groups?
Steve Miller:   So I'll have to go back and look at the numbers, sir, but I think there was an uptick.  And whether --

 US House Rep.  Thomas Young: You've already indicated here, sir, that you agreed with the finding of facts in the IG report.  It says there was no uptick. 

 Steve Miller:  I don' t--

 US House Rep. Thomas Young:  How do you reconcile the two?

 Steve Miller:  I've got to look at the numbers, sir, I can't speak to that.

 US House Rep. Thomas Young:  So you don't agree with the IG report?

 Steve Miller: I'd have to look at the IG report.



Kessler notes Lerner made the May 10th claim in her public remarks and that it is -- as US House Rep Young argued on Friday -- false.

In shocking news today, Richard Simon and Joseph Tanfani (Los Angeles Times) report that IRS official Lois Lerner, who was less than forthcoming with the Americans (to put it mildly), now intends to plead the Fifth Amendment this week when appearing before the Congress of the United States.

 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subjected for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

So Lerner wants to refuse to answer the questions of the people's representatives and to do so claiming that she refuses to self-incriminate herself?  Which most will see as an admission of guilt -- greater guilt than what is known.

The Fifth Amendment is often invoked to protect one's self from the government.  Invoked by a sitting government official?  That's novel.

It gets better.  She's hired an attorney, a criminal defense attorney, William W. Taylor III.  Her attorney is insisting that appearing before the Committee would "embarrass or burden her."   Tough.  She's a government official paid by the US taxpayer.  She wants to refuse to testify and invoke the 5th Amendment, she needs to do it in public.  If it "embarrass"es her, that's too damn bad. 

Shane Goldmacher (National Journal) reports that House Oversight and Government Reform Chair Darrell Issa "has issued a subpoena to Lerner anyway." Goldmacher notes US House "Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, has called for her to resign."



Turning to the issue of Benghazi.  September 11, 2012, an attack there left four Americans dead: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens and Tyrone Woods.  As revelations emerged about e-mails the White House got embarrassed.  Now you have a ton of  partisan prostitutes and idiots weighing in and it gets so very confusing.  I actually read through every damn one of them today.  Mainly because whiny Bob Somerby can't stop lying.  But, please, keep it up.  Independents see the administration lying on this.  The more partisan prostitutes keep dismissing it, the larger the number of independents will be who break with the administration over that.  Somerby's so stupid.  He's attacking Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and MSNBC's entire line up except Chris Matthews for not wasting airtime dropping grenades on Benghazi.  Did it ever occur to him that MSNBC knows this is a losing battle based on the polling?  That talk show hosts are using their time to defend the administration in ways they see as productive?  Or that after nine months, Susan Rice is a dead issue.

She is not innocent as Bob Somerby -- who never attends Congressional hearings or reads source documents (including the e-mails released) -- maintains.  As with Bully Boy Bush and his administration selling the illegal war, the occasional caveat was offered -- by that crooked administration and by Rice.  The totality of their presentation was false and that's true of Susan Rice.  More importantly, Susan Rice isn't liked.  The American people have been polled.  But Bob wants Rachel Maddow to drop everything on her show and spend the next weeks making it all about 'poor Susan Rice.'   All that will do is stir up hostility towards the administration.  Opinions were long ago set. 

It's nonsense.  All he offers is nonsense.

Today, he's enraged that the e-mails might have been paraphrased.  Who does the idiot think saw the e-mails?  We were at the hearing -- repeated hearings -- where House Republicans asked for the e-mails to be released.  We were there when they complained to Secretary John Kerry that they weren't allowed to make copies of them.  That they had to go to a room to view these non-classified documents.

Republicans leaked news of the e-mails but unless there was a Sandy Berger stuffing e-mails into his or her pants to get them out of the control room, why are you surprised that these were paraphrased e-mails?

That's right, because you come in late on the story, you've never done an honest bit of work on it, you've just read a few partisan accounts from your echo chamber, but you think you know everything.

I'm sick of the stupidity.

The White House has apparently not released some of the pertinent e-mails.

I can make that assertion because I read over those that have been released.  I'm a little shocked that nobody's picked up on what Icky Vicky says in one e-mail.


Dan Pfeiffer went on the Sunday chat and chews and lied leading others to lie.  He attacked Jonathan Karl's ABC report (which Bob Somerby announces he'll chew on -- Bob will never chew on how he attacked Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson because Bob is friends with Matt Cooper who was part of the outing of Valerie Plame).  This led to the whopper from 'comedian' Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night, "Now even the press is messing up.  'Hey, look, we found an e-mail where the State Dept demands talking points be edited to reflect political concerns.  Oh, I'm sorry.  We just looked at it again, it's a Groupon."  Oh, how the monkey got laughs.

But is the below funny:
I just had a convo with [deleted] and now I understand that these are being prepared to give to Members of Congress to use with the media. 
On that basis, I have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below, and arming members of Congress to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not mking because we don't want to prejudice the investigation.
In the same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have investigation results... and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either?  Concerned.

Victoria Nuland sent that e-mail September 14, 7:39 pm.  And "deleted" is "CIA OCA."  You'll find that out as you read on through the e-mails because later copies have it written in.

"Why do we want Hill" Congress "to be fingering Ansar al-Sharia, when we aren't doing that ourselves" at the State Dept in public briefings since the attack?  She's also worried about providing the truth which "could be abused by Members" of Congress "to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either?"

Concerned?  Of course she is.  Six months of warnings were ignored.  She didn't want that getting out to the public. 

Jon Stewart made an ass out of himself and misled the American people.  The good thing is, all it did was give partisan Democrats a chuckle.  The independents know better.  And every time someone lies on Benghazi on behalf of the administration, the White House loses the support on this issue of more and more independents.  So keep lying if your goal is to ensure that the 2014 and 2016 elections are ones where Dems lose independent voters.  (I'm not a fan of Rachel Maddow.  But she actually knows what she's doing in this case.  Benghazi is not redeemable with independents at this point.  Your best move is to cover other topics if your goal is electing Democrats.) (But how sad that so many see their goal as elections and not truth.)


Last night, Ann took on Jay Rosen's nonsense attack on Karl's reporting by noting that the point of the on the air report and the point of the report in total was Nuland.  Ann established that by noting two journalist roundtables broadcast the day Karl's report came out.  Six journalists in all, plus a moderator, and when Karl's reporting was cited, what was noted was Victoria Nuland's e-mails.  In 2008, when they felt the Christ-child was threatened, The Cult of St. Barack would respond by demanding someone be fired.  Mike noted last night when they tried to get Charlie Gibson fired from ABC following the debate Barack bombed at.  Mike also pointed out that the Cult has now started a petition to get Karl fired.  Because that's how they are.  To protect Barack, they will destroy anyone.  They will lie and they will bully.  They will try to intimidate the entire press corps.  Because they were able to in 2008.  They think they can do it again. 


When Pearl Harbor was attacked, FDR didn't say, "We're going to war and I can't tell you with who because it's the subject of an ongoing investigation." An attack on a US facility in a foreign country took place and the US government wants to pretend that the suspects could not be named because it could 'tip them off.'  Next up, Eric Holder sues 7-11 for releasing video of an armed robbery at one of the stores arguing that the release has damaged efforts to catch the criminal or criminals.


Ansar al Sharia is still not declared a terrorist group by the US government, not the arm in Libya.  Last October, the US government declared the Yemen arm of  Ansar al Sharia a terrorist group while insisting that it was "a separate entity from Ansar al-Shari'a in Libya."  All this time later, it's still not a terrorist group and all this time later there are still no arrests.  Reality, Ansar al Sharia (in Libya) is among the thugs the US got in bed with in the illegal war on Libya.  In an apparent surprise to a naive administration, thugs you use to take out opponents can then turn on you. 


If you read the e-mails, which apparently few actually did, you come across Victoria Nuland at 9:23 PM (September 14th) writing,   "These don't resolve my issues or those of us my building leadership.  They are consulting with NSS."

Where are the e-mails from State to NSS? 

It's worth noting that the wording is rather chilling when you compare it to her lengthy e-mails.  In an e-mail chain with multiple agencies, Nuland wants changes and doesn't feel she's getting what she wants.  At some point she and others at the State Dept discuss this and decide to bring in NSS to override the ongoing process/exchange.  Nuland feels no need to offer, "We may involve NSS in this."  She waits until after the fact to declare that because her "issues" aren't resolved, her leadership is "consulting with NSS."




This morning the House Veterans Affairs Subcomittee on Health held a hearing on pending bills.  The Subcommittee Chair is Dan Benishek (who is a medical doctor) and the Ranking Member is Julia Brownley.   The first panel was US House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller,  US House Rep Dennis Ross and US House Rep Brett Guthrie.  The second panel was Disabled American Veterans' Adrian Atizado, American Urological Association's Dr. Mark Edney, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of Ameirca's Alex Nicholson, Blinded Veterans Association's Michael O'Rourke and Paralyzed Veterans of America's Alethea Predeoux.  The third panel was the VA's Dr. Robert Jesse accompanied by VA Deputy Assistant General Counsel Susan Blauert.

Subcommittee Chair Dan Benishek is working on a draft of a bill to be entitled Demanding Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013 and this was discussed.


 Subcommittee Chair Dan Benishek:  How do we hold the VA accountable?  How do we get those people to actually produce?  Mr. Nicholson, do you have any other ideas there?

I would just add, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are on the same page in terms of solutions that would actually have teeth to them.  You know, I think whether it's public safety issues, IG recommendations, following through on reducing the backlog, it doesn't sort of matter what issue you look at, the VA keeps promising us progress year after year and, you know, we-we see backlogs in not only disability claims issues but, like you mentioned earlier, in following through on all these outstanding IG recommendations.  So something that would add some teeth to the accountability factor I think would certainly be welcomed by us.  You know, we hear from our members consistently, year after year -- we do an annual survey of our membership which is one of the largest that's done independently of Iraq and Afghanistan era veterans.  And we consistently hear that while veterans are satisfied with the care they receive, they continue to be dissatisfied overall with the VA itself.  [. . .]  I would say from our perspective, solutions you mentioned with teeth would certainly be welcome and I think it's certainly high time that we start adding teeth into these type of bills.


Ranking Member Julia Brownley is concerned about disabled veterans being at risk of not receiving care as a result of the distance between them and the medical centers.  

Ranking Member Julia Brownley: And finally, my bill, HR 1284 The Veterans Medical Access Act would provide better access for blind and severely disabled veterans who need to travel long distances to obtain care at a special rehabilitation center.  Oftentimes blind and catastrophically disabled veterans choose not to travel to VA medical centers for care because they cannot afford the costs associated with the travel.  Currently the VA is required to cover the costs of transportation for veterans requiring medical care for service-connected injuries.  HR 1284 would extend those travel benefits to a veteran with vision impairment, a veteran with a spinal cord injury or disorder, or a veteran with double or multiple amputations whose travel is in connection with care provided through a special disabilities rehabilitation program of the VA.  Our disabled veterans have already made the greatest of sacrifices and I firmly believe, as I'm sure do everyone here in this Committee hearing today, that no veteran should be denied needed medical care.




PVA, DAV and BVA support the Ranking Member's bill  As feedback here and face-to-face with veterans groups has made clear, many veterans with physical injuries feel that there physical injuries are often overlooked by the media in the rush to cover the signature wounds of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars: Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-Traumatic Stress. 


Suicide is a pressing issue for both VA and DoD and it arose in the hearing.



Committee Chair Jeff Miller: Two weeks ago yesterday, I spent the day in Atlanta, Georgia with several members of the Georgia delegation to discuss inpatient and contract mental health program mismanagement issues at the Atlanta Dept of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.  The visit occurred after the VA Inspector General issued two reports which found that failures in management, leadership, oversight and care coordination at the Atlanta VAMC contributed to the suicide deaths of two veteran patients and the overdose deaths of two others.  Alarmingly, the IG found that approximately four-to-five thousand veteran patients fell through the cracks and were lost in the system after the Atlanta VAMC failed to adequately coordinate or monitor the care they received under VA's contracts with community mental health providers.  I wish that I could say that the issues in Atlanta are an isolated aberration.  Unfortunately, that would be far from the truth.

US House Rep Dennis Ross noted that "the VA has set the goal to provide an initial mental health evaluation within 14 days from the time the veteran contacts a VA medical provider to schedule a consultation.  They claim -- The VA claims -- to have met this goal with a 95% success rate; however, an Inspector General report published in 2012 greatly contradicts these claims.  In fact, the IG report determined that the VA met its goal only 49% of its time."  He also noted Chair Jeff Miller's point that 184,000 veterans were waiting over 50 days for the initial evaluation -- "not treatment, just the initial evaluations."  His bill is HR 241 Veterans Timely Access to Health Care Act.

US House Rep Brett Guthrie HR 984 To direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a task force on urotrauma.  He noted that there was a 350% increase in urotrauma in the current conflicts when compared to previous ones and that, prior to deployment to war zones, DoD surgeons and nurses are not receiving special training in urotrauma.















rod nordland
















 




Posted by at Links to this post

Satisifed customer Nouri says magic wands work

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 564 violent deaths so far this month and they have 11 more days in the month to count.  Including today when Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Tarmiya suicide bomber claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers (seven more injured), a Tuk Hurmato car bombing which claimed 5 lives (forty-three more injured), and 3 Kirkuk roadside bombings which claimed 6 lives (twenty-five more injured).  Mustafa Mahmoud, Isabel Coles and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) quote Kirkuk survivor Mahmoud Jumaa stating, "I heard the explosions, but never thought this place would be targeted since these animals have nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with sect, nothing to do with ethnicity or religion."

Meanwhile Abbas al-Mahmadawi flaunts ignorance.  He's the Secretary General of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coalition.  (At one point, this was a term for Sahwa aka Sons of Iraq.)  According to Press TV, "Britain and the US are responsible for the growing number of bombings in Iraq because of their sales of fake bomb detects to the country, Secretary Genera of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coaltion Abbas Al Mahmadawi says."  England did not sell the 'magic' wands.  A British citizen did and the UK put him on trial, convicted him and sentenced him.

The US government did not sale any magic wands and no US citizen was in charge of that company.  I believe it was also the US press that first raised objections about the wands.  At the start of November 2009, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported on these 'bomb detectors' in use in Iraq: "The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works 'on the same principle as a Ouija board' -- the power of suggestion -- said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosive divining rod."


It's amazing that Abbas is too cowardly to blame Nouri al-Maliki.  From yesterday's snapshot:

 So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working?  No.  It was known before that.  May 11th,  Alsumaria reported  that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased anymore.  There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to answer questions.  He needs to.  But he has refused all calls so far -- despite the Constitution on this issue.  He continues to violate and ignore the Constitution.   Kitabat  also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here.  May 12th,   Alsumaria reported Parliament's Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of "top officials" involved.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander "Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs, which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the intelligence information."  May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands were still being used in Baghdad.


Nouri was told they didn't work and he ordered them anyway.  They're still being used -- and they don't work.

Wait, it gets better.

Al Mada reports that Nouri held a press conference today and announced that the magic wands work.  Back when Karim reported they were being used, I noted Nouri's plan to sue the maker just lost standing.  Any chance that it still had legal standing is now gone.  Nouri stood up and Baghdad and declared that the rip-off devices work.  That's money Iraq will now never get back.  It doesn't matter that they don't work.  Ignoring years of warnings, Nouri continues to use them.  It no longer matters, he's lost standing to sue.

What an idiot.  Dar Addustour has him insisting that these 'magic' wands can detect bombs 20 to 40% of the time.  No, they can't.  This was established in a court of law.  What an idiot.  Robert Booth (Guardian) reported May 2nd:

 McCormick sold 7,000 fake bomb detectors based on useless golf ball finders to the Iraqi government and other international agencies for prices ranging from £1,600 per unit to £19,000.
They cost McCormick less than $50 (£32) and police believe sales to Iraq alone were worth more than £55m, buying McCormick a mansion in Bath, holiday homes abroad and a yacht.
Judge Richard Hone told McCormick: "Your fraudulent conduct in selling so many useless devices for simply enormous profit promoted a false sense of security and in all probability materially contributed to causing death and injury to innocent individuals."

Get it? They didn't work.  They were never going to work.  They had nothing to do with bombs but were invented to be golf ball finders and were useless at even that.

Why didn't Nouri appear before Parliament today?  Because he has blood on his hands and he knows it.  Instead of getting honest, he's now insisting that the magic wands work.


Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujafi also held a press conference.  All Iraq News reports that  he called out Nouri for ordering State of Law MPs not to attend today's emergency session.  He calls it a violation of the Constitution.  National Iraqi News Agency notes that al-Nujaifi "added that there is no personal problem between him and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, confirming that the problem lies in the lack of respect from al-Maliki to the legislative authority."   Alsumaria reports State of Law is screaming for al-Nujaifi to resign. (State of Law is Nouri's political slate.  In the 2010 elections, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya beat State of Law.)  Alsumaria notes cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has weighed in but their brief report doesn't make clear on whose side. He apologizes to the Iraqi people for what is happening and blames government officials -- Iraqiya and State of Law both?  Nouri for calling for a boycott of the emergency session?   It's not clear.

Following yesterday's violence in Basra and Baghdad, the Iraq Times reports professors and teachers belonging to the National Alliance coalition are asking that Nouri be dismissed as prime minister as a result of the continued violence and unstable security.  Moqtada's bloc is part of the Shi'ite National Alliance (as is Nouri's State of Law).  The report notes an MP from Moqtada's bloc said Nouri needs to resign or appear before Parliament. He's been denounced for the way he's managed Iraqi security.  As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) has a column on the whole matter that strives for balance and notes that the Parliament was directly elected by the people (not true of the prime minister) and that Nouri should show respect for democracy and for the state institutions.


Meanwhile, Alsumaria reports prisoners at a Rifai prison are on a hunger strike over conditions at the prison and the inability of the judiciary to set court appearances. There is no mention of average wait of these prisoners but Iraqis have been waiting years for court appearances.  This has been a complaint by Iraqis for years now.  There has been no improvement.  Which is one of the reasons Nouri's Baghdad court shouldn't have grabbed ahold of investigating the Hawija massacre.  They have enough on their plate already.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.




 rod nordland


 


iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
Posted by at Links to this post

Fact-Free Jon Stewart, King of Dumb Comedy

Jon Stewart is part of the dumbing down of our culture.  He really needs to stop.  There was a time, when he started, that he presented as a comedian but now he and his cult think he's a newscaster.

An e-mail noted some supposedly great monologue he did on the VA backlog.  I'm doubting it's all that great, if it were he wouldn't need to be using the f-word.  But I went to The Daily Show to stream and got up to this lie:

 Now even the press is messing up.  "Hey, look, we found an e-mail where the State Dept demands talking points be edited to reflect political concerns.  Oh, I'm sorry.  We just looked at it again, it's a Groupon."


Even with a team of writers, he can't be truthful.  Jonathan Karl's May 11th story on broadcast television requires no correction.  Online, as Howard Kurtz notes, in the 16th paragraph was a mention to Ben Rhodes' e-mail that was inaccurate, that Karl's acknowledged was wrong.

Ben Rhodes was never the story.  He wasn't the story here -- see last Wednesday's snapshot where I went over this -- because the e-mail he supposedly wrote was innocuous.  He wasn't the story to the media because he's the brother of the president of CBS News.

Victoria Nuland was and is the story.  She wanted changes and put it in writing.  She wanted changes to avoid questioning.

That was the State Dept.  Even with a writing staff, Jon Stewart can't get the facts right and has to resort to the f-word to get laughs.  Or in mocking someone's accent.  What Senator Mitch McConnell said wasn't funny.  That didn't stop Jon Stewart from being the old whore who mocked him. McConnell stated that they didn't know the facts.  That's correct.  I have no idea which scandal he was talking about, I would guess the IRS, but that is correct.

Jon Stewart then does a lecture about how Republicans shouldn't act like they know what happened when they don't have the facts.  Which was the point McConnell was making that Stewart mocked him for.


Stewart wants the press to stand up . . . and do what?  What he does?

He is a middle aged comic trying to play to kids.  He's Soupy Sales without the realization that it's time to pack it in and go home.  Too long in the tooth, too mired in repeating the same dog tricks because he's too scared to do anything else.

So they fudge the facts to get a cheap laugh on McConnell (who appears to have made the same point Stewart would later make) and they fudge the facts so that all the uninformed idiots who wrongly think The Daily Show gives them news can walk away with the idea that Victoria Nuland was wrongly criticized.

Jon or whichever writer decided to include Reliable Sources (CNN) from the weekend left out the part where Howie Kurtz noted that the Nuland point was correct, that the Ben Rhodes point (wrong) was not broadcast, was part of the online text report and Karl had apologized.



So Jon Stewart lied.  Knowingly?  He's paid too much money for us to waste our time over that.

He got Crossfire cancelled because he went on there and told them they were hurting America.

Jon Stewart hurts America far more than Republican talking head versus Democratic talking head ever did.  Jon Stewart presents himself as factual.

But he lies.  He cheats the truth to get his cheap laughs.

I knew Jon back when he was sexy.  That was a long time ago.  By the time he did First Wives Club (all his scenes ended up on the cutting room floor where they belonged), he was already long in the tooth and pudgy.  He's Paul Reiser with a hint more of masculinity -- just a hint.

I have no idea where he goes 10 years from now.  He's been in the same creative rut for what, 8 years now?  He's refused to advance as a stand up which means he's the oldies circuit, getting laughs from old people by doing the same dog tricks over and over.  At his sexiest, Jon had a spark that was danger.  You didn't know where he was going to go, you weren't sure you could trust him.

It's that spark that led him to The Daily Show and that program has snuffed it out.

He could have been the most important comedian in the country.  He had the talent and drive.  Instead, he chose to make basic cable a career and, night after night, do the exact same thing, year after year.


Nuland wrote what ABC reported.  Ben Rhodes does not work for the State Dept.  Jon Stewart got a laugh from a lie.  If he any class left, he'd be doing a clarification tonight.

He's real good about telling you how the press got it wrong.  Sometimes, he's so good at it because he lies about what the press said.

So how does he reconcile calling out Crossfire all those years ago with the crap he puts on today.  He is dumbing down America.

If he had any guts, he'd be ripping apart the talking points for the reason they need to be ripped apart.

The American people had every right to know what happened.

That includes the six month lead up to the September 11, 2012 attack.

Claiming that it's due to an ongoing investigation?  That is nonsense.

If there is a bank robbery and the FBI has photos of suspects, they release it to the media.

The notion that the Americans knowing who the attackers were would alert the attackers -- who had already Tweeted to claim credit after the attack -- is nonsense.

That is the big lie.

The administration -- in all of its departments -- refused to tell the American people the truth.  Due to the election?  Maybe.  Due to the secrecy of this administration?  Probably.

Equally true, there was no report from US on the ground that there was a protest.  None.

They can talk out of their ass all they want.  The reality is, if anyone believed that, they should be in front of Congress now answering as to how they got that conclusion when no US personnel in Libya were saying there was a protest.

And why would you have a protest there?

Though Ambassador Chris Stevens was under pressure from Hillary Clinton to have a consulate open in Benghazi by the end of the year, it wasn't open yet.  Why would you stage a protest there to begin with?  Were you groupies for Chris Stevens that followed the man all around Libya?

Where is the logic there?  It never made sense.

Funny man Jon Stewart isn't very funny or factual.

And it's really past time that serious questions were asked.  Such as?  What the hell was wrong with the intel if it was wrong?  If all US personnel are saying no protest, where's the falsehood coming from and how does it work its way into conversations?

Jon Stewart can't touch that because all he is now a trained monkey.   He could have been the next Bill Hicks.  Instead, he's devolved into the new Merv Griffin.  Let's hope Rosewater works out for him because otherwise, like Merv, he'll sit on a pile of money but no one will remember him as anyone important.  Hint to Jon, you're a lousy actor because you act 'to the hand.'  (He's forever lost in an aside instead of projecting to the audience.)  Watch for that in your directing, maintain focus and forward momentum.

And if Jon thinks I'm being harsh, my reply is: I'm dealing with what you did.  Wait until Rosewater comes out and you get the same treatment Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow got from the same knee-jerk reactionaries and then you can whine about unfair.


The following community sites -- plus The Diane Rehm Show, Antiwar.com, the Pacifica Evening News and Black Agenda Radio --  updated last night and this morning:

Black Agenda Report
Listen to Black Agenda Radio on the Progressive Radio Network, with Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey – Week of 5/20/13
14 hours ago



We'll close with this from Patrick C. Toomey's "AP Phone Records Scandal Highlights a Broader Problem: Lack of Checks and Balances on Government Access to Records" (ACLU Blog of Rights):

Last week we learned that the Department of Justice, in an unprecedented intrusion on the work of journalists, had obtained records for twenty telephone numbers belonging to the Associated Press or its reporters, spanning April and May 2012. The telephone records obtained do not include the content of phone calls, but they likely reveal the phone number of each and every caller on those lines for a period of weeks and, therefore, the identity of scores of confidential media sources.
The seizure of these records came to light only because the government has a special set of guidelines that require it to notify any media organization of a subpoena for its records within (at most) 90 days. The AP appears to have learned of the seizure of its phone records, albeit after the fact, only because of this special policy.
The notice given to the AP has generated a healthy debate over the limits on the government’s authority to acquire our telephone and internet records. But what if you aren’t a media organization and, therefore, do not benefit from the special government policy entitling you to notice when the government obtains your telephone or internet records? What information can the government get about you, and is it even required to tell you when it does so? The short answer is: it can learn a great deal about your communications, often without even getting a warrant, and it is generally not required to tell you it’s done so at all.






The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.






iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
Posted by at Links to this post

Monday, May 20, 2013

Iraq snapshot

Monday, May 20, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, the US government continues The War on the First Amendment, a Fox News reporter is the latest revealed target, Iraq is slammed by bombings, Parliament plans an emergency session to address the issue tomorrow, Nouri tells people to boycott the session, photos of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani surface over the weekend, US President Barack Obama extends Bully Boy Bush's "National Emergency with Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq" Executive Order (no one in the US press covers this or asks about it), Jay Carney tries to sneak an 'update' (revision) past White House reporters today on the IRS scandal, it goes so badly he talks Iraq, and more.

In the US, The War on the First Amendment continues.  Last Monday brought the shocking news that the US Justice Dept had secretly seized two months of phone records from the historic, 167-year-old news organization the Associated Press.  This was over a 'leak' supposedly.  But the Justice Dept knew of the 2012 report over a week before it was published.  The Justice Dept also felt that they would ignore laws requiring them to at first work with the AP and resort to secret seizure only after that.  Instead, they moved to secret seziure and when the records were seized no one still knows.  (It could have been 45 days prior to them notifying the AP.  But it could have been as much as 90 days.)  No one knows.  This is not a free society, this is not an open society.  This is an offense and it's outrageous.

Yesterday, another attack in The War on the First Amendment is revealed.   Ann E. Marimow (Washington Post) breaks the news of the Justice Dept targeting Fox News' James Rosen over press reports he filed on North Korea.  They not only seized his phone records, they also sezied his personal e-mails and "used security badge access records to track the reporter's comings and goings from the State Department." First Amendment attorney Charles Tobin tells the Post, "Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public. That's a very dangerous road to go down."  CNN explains, "The case centered on the leak of intelligence about North Korea in 2009, in which analysts predicted the possibility of a nuclear test if the U.S. enacted further sanctions on the regime. Fox News reported on that analysis on June 11, 2009."  Free Speech Radio News reports it this way:

Dorian Merina:  More information has surfaced on the Department of Justice's surveillance of journalists. The Washington Post reports that the DOJ spied on Fox News DC correspondent James Rosen after he wrote an article in 2009 about North Korea's nuclear program. Not only did investigators review his phone records, they also tracked his security badge to find out when he visited the State Department and they got a search warrant allowing them to read his personal Gmail correspondence. The warrant identifies Rosen as a reporter, but also alleges that as a recipient of leaked information he is a co-conspirator, subject to charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. So far, no formal charges against Rosen have been filed.


  Ned Resnikoff (NBC News) adds:



The revelation that the DOJ would classify a journalist as an un-indicted co-conspirator under the 1917 Espionage Act is “even a bigger deal” than the department’s seizure of Associated Press  phone records, said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
"A line has been crossed that has always been a very critical bulwark,” he said. “That’s the line between government leakers and media publishers." No journalist has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act, what has traditionally "only been used against those who gave or sold secrets to the enemy."


The Project on Government Secrecy's Steven Aftergood tells Ann E. Marimow, "Asking for information has never been deemed a crime.  It's a line that has not been crossed up until now."
Fox News Vice President of News Michael Clemente issued a statement today noting, "We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter.  In fact, it is downright chilling.  We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."  US Senator Marco Rubio's office sent out the following today:

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement after a report was released claiming that the Obama Administration targeted a FOX News reporter during a leak investigation:
"I am very concerned by reports the Obama Administration targeted a FOX News reporter for possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment. The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration’s handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate.  But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government – not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve a vital function in our democracy. We must insist that federal agents not use legitimate investigations as an excuse to harass journalists they deem unfriendly to the President or the Administration.  We shouldn’t even have to ask if our government would do such a thing, but unfortunately as the unfolding IRS scandal shows, this White House has created a culture where we do have to explicitly make these kinds of requests."



 Digging around the story, Garance Franke-Ruta (The Atlantic) notes Rosen but also wonders who else in the press has the government gone after?  She writes, "In an August 2010 report on the indictment of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim on charges of 'disclosing national defense information in June 2009 to a national news organization, believed to be Fox News,' several other reporters were mentioned in relation to the DoJ leak investigations, in addition to Rosen."  She notes Siobhan Gorman (Wall St. Journal) and Richard Silverstein (Tikun Olam) were two others mentioned.  Philip Klein (Washington Examiner) wonders if it goes beyond this case and AP:

 Last year, Bloomberg reported that Attorney General Eric Holder “has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.” The administration has also received a failing grade for its ignoring of Freedom of Information Act requests.
Taken together, all such actions have a toll. They mean that federal officials are less likely to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing and that journalists are less likely to obtain damning information that they can pass along to the public. The suggestion by the DOJ that Rosen broke the law, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean the end of investigative journalism in America.


Mother Jones' David Corn Tweeted:



6h
If a reporter asks a source who handles classified material for info, does DOJ see that as a crime? The Rosen case may be more imp. than AP.
Expand


For that observation, he got blowback and had to try and provide a Twitter tutorial on Freedom of the Press:

  2. 5h
    Should DOJ have characterized Woodward as criminal co-conspirator for getting info from Felt or NYT reporters for accepting Pentagon Papers?
    Expand
  3. 6h
    A reminder to Fox/Rosen haters: Bush-Cheney national security abuses uncovered by nat. sec. reporters who could now be at risk.
    Expand
  4. 6h
    To Fox-hating tweeps, one doesn't have to defend Fox/Rosen to note DOJ is moving into a troubling area-criminalizing reporter-source contact
    Expand
  5. 6h
    An Inside Look at How DOJ Goes After Reporters, Not Just Leakers
    Retweeted by
    Expand

Why did Corn have to perform a tutorial?  Because of the nonsense pushback of "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby."  Writing about the scandal of targeting the AP, Craig Aaron (The Progressive) noted last week:

 The probe appears to be unprecedented in its scale and scope. But as Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation notes: “In five years, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than all other administrations combined, and virtually all these prosecutions have engulfed journalists one way or another.”
The initial reaction of the Obama administration was evasion from Attorney General Eric Holder and squirming by White House Spokesman Jay Carney -- who became flustered when the briefing-room lapdogs started to snarl.
Pro-Obama messengers were instructed to act concerned the reporters might have tipped off the terrorists and -- if that didn’t work -- to shout “Valerie Plame” a lot. But that mostly served as a reminder of how much the most transparent administration ever™ was outdoing another famous Dick: Dick Cheney.


As many have noted, you can see the pushback nonsense at CJR again today.  But who takes CJR seriously anymore?  Rhonda Roland Shearer's expose "CJR Reporter Lying, Exploiting a Source? What's happening at Columbia Journalism Review?" revealed CJR doesn't check their facts, they humiliate a private citizen and won't apologize or correct their errors, they allow a 'reporter' to do a stunt to make a documentary and they treat it as news, they defend their 'reporter' lying to newspaper reporters . . . The list never ends.

In the world of real journalism, there is concern.  Connie Schultz (Orlando Sentinel) notes:

 
Meanwhile, journalists around the country are asking, "What the heck is going on?"
It should be the question on every concerned citizen's mind. It breaks my heart that we need this reminder: A thriving — and free — press is often the only check on representative government. Already, potential government whistle-blowers have lost their nerve and never will pick up that phone.

It's a point New York Times investigative reporter Mark Mazzetti makes to Greg Sargent (Washington Post) today, "There’s no question that this has a chilling effect.  People who have talked in the past are less willing to talk now. Everyone is worried about communication and how to communicate, and [asking if there] is there any method of communication that is not being monitored. It’s got people on both sides -- the reporter and source side -- pretty concerned."  Jordy Yager and Mike Lillis (The Hill) point out, "Obama himself has made no apologies for the Justice’s sweep of AP phone records."

He issued no apologies for that.  But late Friday, he did issue the following:





The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 17, 2013

Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq

NOTICE
- - - - - - -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
WITH RESPECT TO THE STABILIZATION OF IRAQ
On May 22, 2003, by Executive Order 13303, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the continued reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

The obstacles to the continued reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303, as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13438 of July 17, 2007, must continue in effect beyond May 22, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq declared in Executive Order 13303.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.


BARACK OBAMA


THE WHITE HOUSE,
     May 17, 2013.




Why is a US president issuing declarations -- national emergency ones -- about the supposed 'free' Iraq?  Oh, that's right.  It's not really free of the US.


 Violence slams Iraq today.  Brisband Times notes (in a video report),  "Washing the blood off the streets, the clear up begins after another deadly day of violence in Iraq."  Fiji Broadcasting Corporation observes, "Baghdad was the worst hit."  This morning,  Al Jazeera noted, "Eight car bombs in mainly Shia districts of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killed 20 people on Monday."   By the end of the day, AP reported the bombing toll was up to 10 and the death toll to 48 (with over 150 injured).  On this AP video report, a Baghdad man states, "We have become accustom to such explosions.  We have seen blasts every day. These attacks will never frighten us, God willing."  As Baghdad is slammed with bombings, it's worth dropping back to the May 10th snapshot:

Alsumaria reports that cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr declared his sympathy for the Iraqis who've lost family members as a result of the purchase and use by Nouri's government of 'magic' wands -- which have been known not to work since 2009.  Moqtada urged the families who lost loved ones and those who were injured as a result to sue the person who purchased the items. (That would be Nouri.)  April 23rd (see the  April 24, 2013 snapshot), James McCormick, the man who made and sold the wands, who was on trial for those wands, was pronounced guilty on three counts of fraud.  And still Nouri has allowed -- no, insisted that the wands be used.   May 2nd, McCormick was sentenced to a maxium of 10 years.  Jake Ryan (Sun) quoted Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the highest category.  Your profits were obscene.  You have neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse." And yet last Friday, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that the 'magic'  wands to 'detect' bombs (and drugs and, no doubt, spirits from the other world) are still being used in Iraq.  He spoke with a police officer in Baghdad who admits that everyone knows that they don't work but that the police are under orders to use the wands.

Last Saturday,   NINA reported,  "Leader of the Sadrist Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, demanded Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to apologize and stand before Parliament to answer about the deal of the explosives detection instruments."  Moqtada suspects some Iraqis were bribed in this deal and wants names he also demands that the 'magic' wands stop being used immediately stating that they are "an insult to the Iraqis' intelligence."  Moqtada and Iraqiya have called for Nouri to appear before Parliament and explain why the wands were purchased, who profited from them and the various details of the deal that was made for them.

Al Mada reports that the Ministry of the Interior claimed today that they would recover all the money spent on the magic wands.  Ministry of the Interior Inspector General Aqeel Turaihi states that they have known and acknowledged since October 2010 that the magic wands do not work.

Regardless of whether money is recovered for the purchase, as Moqtada al-Sadr points out, lives have been lost and people have been injured.

So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working?  No.  It was known before that.  May 11th,  Alsumaria reported  that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased anymore.  There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to answer questions.  He needs to.  But he has refused all calls so far -- despite the Constitution on this issue.  He continues to violate and ignore the Constitution.   Kitabat  also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here.  May 12th,   Alsumaria reported Parliament's Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of "top officials" involved.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander "Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs, which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the intelligence information."  May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands were still being used in Baghdad.  May 2nd, the seller and maker was sentenced:

The Belfast Telegraph notes that [James] McCormick "showed no reaction as he was told his 'callous confidence trick' was the worst fraud imaginable."  Jake Ryan (Sun) quotes Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the highest category.  Your profits were obscene.  You have neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse."


The use of these 'magic' wands in Iraq still is criminal.

We're done with Baghdad violence but Iraq is more than just Baghdad.  National Iraqi News Agency reports a Mosul roadside bombing injured a police officer and civilian, 2 Basra car bombings claimed 13 lives and left fifty injured, a Samara car bombing claimed 13 lives and left nine people injured, a Mosul mortar attack claimed 1 life and left another person injured,  and an Anbar attack left 8 police officers dead.  Xinhua adds, "Twelve kidnapped policemen were killed and four were wounded in overnight clashes between the abductors and the Iraqi security forces in Anbar province, a provincial police source said on Monday. The Iraqi army and police forces carried out a joint operation on Sunday night in the desert area between Baghdad and Jordan to free kidnapped policemen, and the troops clashed with their kidnappers, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity."  And Alsumaria reports a Tikrit car bombing has claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left fifteen more injured.  Sinan Salaheddin (AP) counts 95 violent deaths across the country today.



Through Saturday, Iraq Body Count counts 412 violent deaths so far this month.  That means IBC has 13 more days this month to count deaths.  The violence is increasing in Iraq.  Tomorrow Parliament is supposed to hold an emergency session to explore the security problems.   Le Monde notes the violence comes as Nouri al-Maliki is accused of refusing to share power.

All Iraq News reports State of Law has announced, via MP Ibrahim al-Rikabi, that they will not be attending the emergency session.  State of Law is Nouri al-Maliki's political coalition.  It came in second to Iraqiya in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Last July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." Nouri's failure to fill those positions goes a long way towards explaining how violence has increased.  Press TV reminds, "The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) said on May 2 that April was the deadliest month in Iraq since 2008 as terrorist acts killed over 700 people and injured more than 1,600 across the country."  Ali al-Timimi is an MP with Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc.  He tells All Iraq News that he doubts State of Law will attend since Nouri has refused calls to appear before Parliament to discuss the security issue before.  He stated that they should "attend the session to stop shedding the Iraqi blood."  Aziz Alwan and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report Nouri's going further than just boycotting the session:

 In the aftermath of Monday's bombings, Maliki warned lawmakers to stay away from a parliamentary session scheduled for Tuesday by his rivals to discuss the spiraling violence. He accused politicians he refused to name of being behind the unrest, and he threatened to send their names to the courts for arrest if they were not already wanted, saying some instigators of violence were trying to hide behind parliamentary immunity.

While evading Parliament (and the Constitution), Sky News reports Nouri plans to discuss security with his Cabinet tomorrow.   Last July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." Those positions should have been filled at the end of 2010.  It is now 2013 and they remain empty.  They remain empty as violence grips Iraq.  This is not unrelated.  This goes to the violence and it goes to the incompetence of Nouri al-Maliki.  He refused to nominate people for Parliament to approve because he wanted to seize control of the three positions. The security situation falls on Nouri.




In other news, Saturday Al Mada rans a photo of Jalal Talabani seated outdoors with his medical team and notes the team states the Iraqi President's health has continued to improve and he will return to Iraq shortly. Last December,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.  Two weeks ago, there were new rumors swirling about his health and, this past week,  Nouri al-Maliki attempted to have Jalal stripped of his post.  (Parliament rejected the notion.)

 Jalal is also the head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), his political party.  They ran several photos and noted Jalal and his medical team were photographed in the German hospital's garden.  If you use the link, you can also see Kurdish reaction to the news about Jalal's improved health (those pictured are overjoyed).  At the website of the Kurdistan Regional Government, KRG President Massoud Barzani congratulates Jalal Talabani on his improved health and wishes for his return in "health and wellness at the nearest time possible." Nouri's warm wishes must have gotten lost in the mail.


Today, at the US State Dept, Secretary of State John Kerry announced (link is text and video) the release of a new report.

Secretary of State John Kerry:   Well, thanks for being here today for the release of the 2012 International Religious Freedom Report. I am pleased to be here with our Ambassador-at-Large, Suzan Johnson Cook, and I want to thank her and her entire cohort here for their terrific work in helping to put this together. She is doing – they are doing a superb job of advancing religious freedom abroad. 
I also want to acknowledge the hard work of a whole bunch of State Department employees both here in Washington and at a lot of posts around the world, because all of them collect the information and do a lot of work throughout the year in order to be able to put this report together. This is not a one- or two-week affair. It’s a long one-year process, ongoing.
Fifteen years ago, I was very proud to join my colleagues in the United States Congress in passing the International Religious Freedom Act, the law that mandates the preparation of this State Department report. This report, as many of you know, shines light on the challenges that people face as they seek nothing more than the basic religious freedom, the right to worship as they wish. And its release here today is a demonstration of the abiding commitment of the American people and the entire U.S. Government to the advancement of freedom of religion worldwide.

The report covers the globe.  We'll note this from the Iraq section:

There were reports of government abuses of religious freedom, including arrests and detentions, as well as reports of restrictions and discrimination based on religion by both the central government and the KRG. Sectarian misuse of official authority continued to be a concern. However, the government and the KRG continued to respect the religious freedom of the vast majority of citizens.
Many Sunni Muslims alleged an ongoing campaign of revenge by the Shia majority in retribution for the Sunnis’ favored status and abuses of Shia under the former regime. They reported that government security forces targeted them for harassment, illegal searches, arbitrary arrest and detention, and torture and abuse. In March government security forces reportedly made mass arrests in predominantly Sunni areas of Baghdad before the Arab League Summit. Government officials denied the arrests were preemptive or targeted Sunni Muslims. Upon release, detainees and witnesses reported to NGOs they were not shown arrest warrants and some detainees reported that they were tortured in custody.
Shabak and some Yezidi political leaders allege that Kurdish Peshmerga and Asayish forces regularly harassed and committed abuses against their communities in the portion of Ninewa Province controlled by the KRG or contested between the government and the KRG. Other Yezidi leaders alleged that the Iraqi Security Forces harassed and committed abuses against their community in portions of Ninewa Province under the central government’s authority and in disputed areas.
In September security forces raided dozens of minority-owned businesses, including restaurants, bars, social clubs, and nightclubs in Baghdad. Eyewitnesses reported security forces destroyed property and beat staff and patrons with the butts of their guns and batons; several people were hospitalized for their injuries. Local authorities claimed the raids were court-ordered and targeted business owners selling alcohol without a license, but a court judicial spokesperson denied there was a court order.
Official investigations of abuses by government, illegal armed groups, and terrorist organizations were infrequent, and the outcomes of investigations were often unpublished, unknown, or incomplete.
The KRG compensated Chaldean, Syriac, and Yezidi victims of the December 2011 Dahuk riots in the IKR. On December 2, 2011, 300 to 1,000 rioters attacked Christian and Yezidi businesses in Dahuk Province, burning and destroying 26 liquor stores, a massage parlor, four hotels, and a casino. The riot followed midday prayers at the Rasheed Mosque in Zakho where a Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU) party-affiliated imam allegedly incited the attacks against members of minority religious groups by denouncing their businesses as anti-Islamic. IKR President Masoud Barzani promised to compensate the victims and formed a committee to investigate the attacks. The committee concluded that KIU followers “emboldened the violence” against Christian and Yezidi businesses, Kurdistan Democratic Party leaders “failed to control their members from attacking KIU organization centers” in retaliatory counterattacks, and Dahuk Province security and administrative officials were “negligent” in their control of the situation.
There were allegations that both the central government and the KRG discriminated against members of minority religious groups. Many Christians reported that the central government and KRG unreasonably delayed the return of church land and land confiscated from members of their community under the former regime. Additionally, some university professors reported that the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) dismissed qualified, experienced personnel based on religious affiliation and that positions were sold to the highest bidders.
To receive assistance from the KRG Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs, religious groups are required to register with them. Some Christian pastors not registered with the KRG Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs reported pressure to desist from proselytizing and to provide information about their congregations to the KRG, under the perceived threat of imprisonment and threats to their congregants and family. In July 2011 KRG security forces arrested a pastor and charged him under the KRG’s 2006 Anti-Terrorism Law; family and supporters alleged he was detained and prosecuted because of proselytizing. The pastor had access to legal representation and his family during the trial proceedings, which UN officials monitored. On December 17, the court convicted him of espionage, a lesser charge than terrorism, and sentenced him to five years and one month in prison.
Evangelical churches continued to report they were unable to obtain official registration from the government and that registration requirements were too onerous, including that they have at least 500 members in their congregations.
The KRG denied allegations it discriminated against Christians and other minorities. Despite such allegations, many non-Muslims chose to reside in the IKR because of its reputation of offering greater security and tolerance.
Members of minority religious groups were underrepresented in government appointments, public sector jobs, and elected positions outside of the Council of Representatives. Although members of minority religious groups held senior positions in the national parliament and central government, as well as in the KRG, they were proportionally underrepresented in the unelected government workforce, particularly at the provincial and local levels. This underrepresentation limited their access to government-provided security and economic development. Non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Yezidis, complained of being politically isolated by the Muslim majority because of their religious differences, although to a lesser extent in the IKR.
The government and the KRG continued to provide political representation and support to members of minority religious groups during the year. The Iraqi Council of Ministers (COM) has one Christian member (environment), as does the KRG’s COM (communication and transportation). The previous KRG COM included a Yezidi member (agriculture and water) until his tenure ended in April.
On April 30, the Baghdad-Rusafa Federal Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that an 18-year-old could change his religion from Islam to Christianity. The plaintiff’s father converted from Christianity to Islam in 2002 when the plaintiff was under 18, thereby changing the plaintiff’s religion to Islam by operation of law. The plaintiff subsequently petitioned to change his religion back to Christianity on his national identity card when he turned 18. The court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor based on a provision in the Civil Affairs Law (Law 65 of 1972), which allows children who come of age to independently choose their religion.
Although Easter and Christmas were not national holidays, government policy recognizes Christians’ right to observe them, and Christian groups reported they were able to observe Christmas and Easter without interference. The government also provided increased protection to Christian churches during these holidays.



Today at the State Dept press briefing, Iraq wasn't even a topic.  However, it did come up at the White House press briefing leading spokesperson Jay Carney to make the lengthiest remark on Iraq he's made in a long, long time.


 Jay Carney:  Well let me say that we strongly condemn the attacks in Iraq perpetrated over the last several days.  And we are deeply concerned by the frequency and the nature of recent attacks including bombings today, attacks on Iraqi security forces in Anbar over the weekend and a series of attacks on both Sunni and Shia neighborhoods and mosques.  The targeting of innocent people in an effort to sew instability and division is reprehensible.  Our condolances go out to the victims of these attacks and their families.  Over the weekend, US officials in Baghdad and Washington were in contact with a wide range of senior Iraqi leaders to urge calm and help resolves ongoing political and sectarian tensions.  These talks have focused on specific steps to avoid further violence and resolve key issues peacefully through dialogue and the political process. The US remains committed to supporting Iraq's democratic system and urges Iraq's leaders to continue working towards a peaceful resolution of tensions through dialogue.


His desire to speak to Iraq today may have been motivated by his desire to run out the clock after a difficult series of questions and responses.   Today's press conference by Jay Carney was about, 'Forget what I told you about the IRS scandal on Friday, this is what I'm telling you today.'  Many more people knew about it than Carney revealed last Friday and his excuse today?  None offered.  His attitude was, 'Well, you're being told today.'  Michael O'Brien (NBC News) explains:

White House press secretary Jay Carney, in a bid to further the administration's public response to revelations that the IRS had singled out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny, disclosed at his daily press briefing that White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler was informed of the report on April 24. She, in turn, told senior White House staff -- including chief of staff Denis McDonough -- of the then-incomplete report, though Carney said those details were never conveyed to Obama.

On the "new timeline provided by Carney to reporters," Jessica Yellin and Tom Cohen (CNN) explain, "General Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler learned on April 24 of a pending Treasury inspector general's report on how IRS staff used criteria targeting conservative groups in assessing eligibility for tax-exempt status.  According to Carney, Ruemmler told McDonough as well as other Treasury officials about the pending report. It was the first time the White House acknowledged that McDonough was aware of the report before it became public in early May."

 Julianna Goldman and Roger Runningen (Bloomberg News) point out, "Carney's comments today are at odds with what he told reporters last week, when he said the White House counsel 'only found out about the review being conducted and coming to conclusion by the inspector general'."

It was a long weekend for Jay Carney and apparently drinking may have been involved.   Anita Kumar and Kevin G. Hall (McClatchy Newspapers) report that when asked today, Carney couldn't explain the differences between Friday's remarks and today's, "I can't remember specifically.  I'm not sure that I knew it at that time."  (That was in response to National Journal's Alexis Simendinger attempting to get Carney to walk her through the process.)


"The president wants those who are responsible for this to be held accountable," insisted Jay Carney.  "He has zero tolerance for this. He believes that it's very important that the IRS carry out and implement our tax laws in a neutral and fair way and that Americans need to be confident that that's happening."  If that's the case, you fire the IRS Commissioner.  You don't stand before the American people on Wednesday announcing that a resignation of the IRS Commissioner has been asked for and received only for them to find out on Friday that nothing has been done despite the 558 words by Barack Obama on the matter.  We covered the House Ways and Means hearing that Action IRS Commissioner Steve Miller testified at in Friday's "Iraq snapshot" and "IRS: 'Not corrupt, just incompetent'," while Ava reported on it in "Guacamole and the IRS (Ava)," Wally in "Big lie revealed at House Ways and Means hearing," Kat in "The other Steve Miller appears before Congress," and Marcia in "No accountability for the IRS scandal,"  and we roundtabled on it with Dona for "Report on Congress."  From that hearing:


US House Rep Tom Reed:  As you sit here today, you were not fired from your job.  And I can tell you, in my private experience, you would have been fired on the spot.  And all you were allowed to do is resign and retire?  And now you come here and try to say I did the honorable thing by falling on my sword' when nothing bad is going to happen to you.  You're going to get your full benefits.  You're going to get everything that's associated with your retirement as an IRS employee.

 Steve Miller: [Laughing] Nohting bad is happening to me, Congressman?

 US House Rep Tom Reed:  Financially.  You're allowed to retire.  That's the level of accountability in Washington, DC now. You're still acting [Commissioner].  You came here on the taxpayer dollar today. You're getting a paycheck for being here today.  Correct?  Correct?

 Steve Miller:  [Pause]  Correct.



Asked about Miller today, Carney hemmed and hawed and insisted that since he was testifying, he needed to be on the job.  (The press immediately rejected that lie.  Fox News' Ed Henry noted that Miller being a private citizen can continue to testify before Congress.)  Carney insisted, "He's resigned from that post.  The fact is he's resigned entirely from the IRS."  He is still on the job.  That's not a resignation.  And it certainly isn't accountability.


Accountability isn't also lying and misleading Congress and refusing not to own up to it.  From Friday's hearing:
US House Rep Kenny Marchant:  On July 25th, we had another Oversight Committee hearing  in which Commissioner Miller and I had an extended conversation about this very subject.  And that conversation is in this transcript, anyone can get it on the internet and read the questions but the questions were very specifically about Tea Party groups and their difficulties in getting their tax exempt status, the lengthy conversations that they were having, the questionnaires that they were having to answer.  And, again, Mr. Miller in that exchange that you and I had, I came away with that, I felt, with the assurances by you and your office that there were no extraordinary circumstances taking place and that this was just a backlog and there was nothing going on.  Mr. Miller, was that your impression of the hearing that day?


 Acting Commissioner Steve Miller:  Uhm, no sir.  What I said there and what I understood your question to be was -- again, we divide this world in two, there's a question of this selection process and there was a question of what was going on at the time of your question.  At the time of your question, what was out in the public domain and what I thought we were discussing was the letter.  As you called them, the questionnaire.  Those were the over broad letters that had been referred to continuously here. Uhm, again, I stand by my answer there. Uh, there was not, uh-h-h-h-h-h, I-I-I-I did talk about the fact that we had centralized -- I believe, I'd have to take a look at it. But I was talking about the fact that we had fixed that problem.


  
US House Rep Kenny Marchant:  But-but at that time, you knew, by that time, that there were lists being made, there were delineations, there was discrimination going on and that there were steps being taken to try to correct it.  But you knew that it was going on at that time.

  
Acting Commissioner Steve Miller:  We had corrected it.  TIGTA was taking a look.  At that time, my assumption is TIGTA was going to be done with their report that summer. I was not going to go there because I did not have full possessions of all the facts, sir.





We noted Friday:


Any member of Congress who finds that 'answer' acceptable is an embarrassment.  A government official appeared before Congress to testify at a hearing and was asked about potential abuses.  He knew about abuses that the Congress didn't with regard to this subject and did not reveal them.  His lousy excuse about a report coming out? No.  He said (see above) that he had addressed it.  But report or no report, you don't conceal from Congress.  He played words games and he was dishonest.  As USA Today's Susan Page observed on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show today, "Well, we have to go back and look at that, but he certainly left a misimpression among everyone who heard his answers. People heard him as denying it. Now, maybe it will turn out to be some turn of phrase that gives him an exit hatch. But I think it is hard for him to argue that he did not mislead."

Two US Senators are already refusing to accept Miller's 'logic.'  Christi Parsons and Lisa Mascaro (Los Angeles Times) report today:

The leaders of the Senate Finance Committee sent a bipartisan letter to the IRS on Monday calling on the acting commissioner to disclose a raft of information on the matter, including any signs of communications between the IRS and the White House.
“Targeting applicants for tax-exempt status using political labels threatens to undermine the public’s trust in the IRS,” Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) wrote in a letter co-signed by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the committee’s ranking Republican. “Lack of candor in advising the Senate of this practice is equally troubling.”
Senators have been hearing complaints from nonprofit civic organizations for two years, Baucus wrote.





 

cnn

al mada





 

 

Posted by at Links to this post
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)