|
Wednesday,
June 13, 2012. Chaos and violence continue as Iraq is slammed with
bombings which leave over 70 dead, the issue of burn pits is raised in
the Senate, modern day sob sisters try to turn Brett McGurk and Gina
Chon into a modern day King Edward VIII and Mrs. Wallis Simpson,
Republicans ask Barack to withdraw the nominee, and more.
"The
second bill I'd like to mention," declared Senator Patty Murray this
morning, "is the Servicemembers Rights Enforcement Improvement Act of
2012. This is a bill that I wish wasn't necessary but one that
circumstances demand. It builds on current protections put in place to
help shield our nation's heroes from unemployment and foreclosure.
These protections have been violated in a disturbing number of cases
within the past several years. This bill would strengthen the ability
of the Department of Justice and Office of Special Counsel to
investigate and enforce the employment protections of USERRA, which are
so important to members of the National Guard and Reserve. And it would
improve the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as well
as how they are enforced. I introduced this bill because we as a nation
owe it to the men and women who serve with dignity a guarantee that the
protections put in place to ease their burden will be enforced when
they return home. This legislation will ensure the Departments charged
with enforcing these valuable protections have the tools they need to
get the job done."
She is the Chair of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and was presiding over today's hearing
on various veterans bills. The one above, in addition to home issues,
goes to additional resources to pursue those employers who illegally are
refusing to allow Guard and Reserve members to return to the civilian
jobs that they have to leave when they are called up for trainings and
deployments. They cannot be fired because they have been called up by
the military. This is not a new legal standard. But employers are
regularly breaking the law and firing Guard and Reserve members. Most
recently, Home Depot had a store in Arizona which had done that. To the corporation's credit, Home Depot did not attempt to fight the charges or drag it out but instead immediately settled with the Justice Dept
which noted, "Under the terms of the settlement, embodied in a consent
decree that has been submitted for approval to the federal district
court, Home Depot will provide Mr. [Brian] Bailey [Army National
Guard soldier] with $45,000 in monetary relief and make changes to its
Military Leaves of Absence policy. The settlement further mandates that
Home depot review its Military Leaves of Absence policy with managers
from the district where Mr. Bailey worked." This is only one example,
there are many others.
Servicemembers
Rights Enforcement Improvement Act of 2012 -- Amends the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (the Act) concerning the protection of servicemembers
against default judgments to require a plaintiff, before filing an
affidavit, to conduct a diligent and reasonable investigation to
determine whether or not the defendant is in the military service,
including a search of available records of the Department of Defense
(DOD) and any other available information.
Makes a private right of action for a violation of the Act retroactive to December 19, 2003.
Allows
a veteran on whose behalf a complaint of a violation of employment or
reemployment rights is made by the Attorney General (AG) to intervene in
such action, and to obtain appropriate relief. Requires the AG, within
60 days after receiving a referral of an unsuccessful attempt to
resolve a complaint relating to a state or private employer, to notify
the person on whose behalf the complaint is submitted of either the
decision to commence such an action or of when such decision is expected
to be made. Requires, in the latter case, such decision to be made
within an additional 30 days. Requires the AG to commence such an
action when there is reasonable cause to believe that a state or private
employer is engaged in a pattern of practice of resistance to the full
enjoyment of such employment and reemployment rights and benefits, and
that the pattern or practice is intended to deny the full exercise of
such rights and benefits.
Provides the
Special Counsel with subpoena power to require the attendance and
testimony of, and production of documents from, federal employees, to be
enforced through the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Authorizes
the AG to issue and serve a civil investigative demand for the
production of documentary material relevant to an investigation under
the Act.
The Committee heard from two panels about proposed bills. The first panel was the VA's Curtis Coy. The second panel was IAVA's Tom Tarantino, Military Officers Association of America's Robert Norton and Student Veterans of America's
Peter Meijer. Bills are proposed legislation that, if passed by both
Houses of Congress, go to the President for his or her signature and are
signed into law or vetoed. A two-thirds majority of Representatives
and Senators can override a presidential veto. And this is explained at the Kids in the House website
(which I promised a friend I'd link to over a month ago). The House
Leadership and the Office of the Clerk are responsible for the Kids in the House
website and it's a strong (and free) resource for kids, parents,
teachers, people who would like to learn more about the way the House
works.
Each session finds many bills buried in
committees, a smaller number being passed on for a floor vote of the
full house (House or Senate) and a smaller number being referred to the
other chamber after passage. It is very important to get the bill out
of Committee and that's why you will see lawmakers who do not sit on a
Committee show up for that Committee's legislation hearing. Senator
Frank Lautenberg, for example, testified to the Committee today about
his concerns that efforts must be made to preserve the Post 9/11 G.I.
Bill. He has proposed the GI Educational Freedom Act of 2012
(co-sponsors are Senators Richard Blumenthal, Scott Brown, Tom Harkin,
Jeff Merkley and Marco Rubio.
Senator
Frank Lautenberg: I was proud to work with Senator Webb and former
Senators [Chuck] Hagel and John Warner to create a new GI Bill for the
21st Century. The new GI Bill is making a real difference for thousands
of veterans and their families every year. As our veterans return home
from war, we must work to make sure that this important benefit is
protected for years to come. That's why I am outraged to hear that bad
actors in the education community are taking advantage of our heroes.
By using misleading advertising, they rope veterans and their G.I. Bill
benefits into an education that does not adequately prepare them for
employment. The VA offers counseling services to help veterans navigate
the educational process. But the services are available only to
veterans who specifically request educational counseling. One thing is
clear: The VA's current approach is not sufficient. Last year, out of
the hundreds of thousands receiving VA educational assistance, fewer
than 6,500 beneficiaries requested this counseling.
There were four other non-Committee Senators who spoke about bills. Our focus today is one one bill.
Senator
Mark Udall: Sitting in the audience today is Master Sergeant Jessey
Baca a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard and his wife Maria.
[to them] Just give everybody a waive here, you two. Master Sgt. Baca
was stationed in Balad, Iraq and exposed to burn pits. His journey to be
here today was not easy. He has battled cancer, chronic bronchitis,
chemical induced asthma, brain lesions, TBI, PTSD and numerous other
ailments. Maria has traveled that difficult road with him. They know
first hand the suffering caused by burn pits and they need to know the
answers. It is because of them and so many others like them that we are
here today. Last year, I introduced S. 1798,
the Open Burn Pits Registry Act with Senator Corker. Representative
Todd Akin introduced it in the House. It is not a partisan issue. We
have each met with veterans and active duty members of the military and
they have told us how important it is that we act now. In both
Afghanistan and Iraq, open air burn pits were widely used at forward
operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was a major
challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose of waste while
concentrating on the important mission at hand. The solution that was
chosen, however, had serious risks. Pits of waste were set on fire --
sometimes using jet fuel for ignition. Some burn pits were small but
others covered multiple acres of land. Often times, these burn pits
would turn the sky black. At Joint Base Balad Iraq, over 10 acres of
land were used for burning toxic debris. At the height of its
operations, Balad hosted approximately 25,000 military, civilian and
coalition provision authority personnel. These personnel would be
exposed to a toxic soup of chemicals released into the atmosphere.
According to air quality measurements, the air at Balad had multiple
particulates harmful to humans: Plastics and Styrofoams, metals,
chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel
and unexploded ordnance, medical and other dangerous wastes. The air
samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty stuff. Particulate
matter, chemicals that form from the incomplete burning of coal, oil and
gas garbage or other organic substances, volatile organic compounds
such as acetone and benzene -- benzene, as you all know, is known to
cause leukemia -- and dioxins which are associated with Agent Orange.
According to the American Lung Association, emissions from burning waste
contain fine particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
volatile organic compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen
oxides that can scar the lungs. All of this was in the air and being
inhaled into the lungs of service members. Our veterans have slowly
begun to raise the alarm as they learn why -- after returning home --
they are short of breath or experiencing headaches and other symptoms
and, in some cases, developing cancer. Or to put it more simply, by
Maria Baca, when she describes her husband's symptoms, "When he
breathes, he can breathe in, but he can't breathe out. That's the
problem that he's having. It feels like a cactus coming out of his
chest. He feels these splinters and he can't get rid of them." The
Dept of Army has also confirmed the dangers posed by burn pits. In a
memo from April 15, 2011, Environmental Science Engineering Officer, G.
Michael Pratt, wrote an air quality summary on Baghram Airfield. And I
would respectfully ask that the full memo be included in the record.
Referring to the burn pits near Baghram Airfield, he said there was
potential that "long-term exposure at these level may experience the
risk for developing chronic health conditions such as reduced lung
function or exacerbated chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, asthma, atherosclerosis and other cardio pulmonary
diseases. Many of our service members are coming home with
these symptoms. I believe, like you do, Madam Chair, that we are
forever in debt for their service, so we must ask the question, "How did
these burn pits impact the health of our returning heroes?" This bill
is a step towards finding the answers we owe them. The legislation will
establish and maintain and Open Burn Pit Registry for those individuals
who may have been exposed during their military service. It would
include information in this registry that the Secretary of the VA
determines is applicable to possible health effects of this exposure.
develop a public information campaign to inform individuals about the
registry and periodically notify members of the registry of significant
developments associated with burn pits exposure. It is supported by
numerous groups including BurnPits 360,
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of US Navy, Retired Enlisted
Association, the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees and the National
Military Family Association. Madam Chair and Ranking Member Burr, thank
you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to
working with both of you and members of your distinguished Committee on
this important legislation. Thank you and a pleasure once again to be
with you today.
Chair Patty Murray: Thank you very much, Senator Udall. And thank you for your critical work on this. I really appreciate it.
Senator Mark Udall: And I would also ask to be excused unless there are questions from the Committee.
Chair Patty Murray: Absolutely. I appreciate it very much.
Senator Mark Udall: Thank you very much.
Chair Patty Murray: Senator Nelson?
Senator
Bill Nelson: Madam Chairman, Senator Burr, members, I want to second
what Senator Udall just said. We've had a number of cases of the burn
pit exposure in Florida and it is horrific. So thank you, Senator
Udall, for that testimony.
Senator
Nelson and Chair Murray spoke highly of the bill Senator Udall is
sponsoring. Certainly, any time the Committee Chair considers your bill
important, that's a good thing.
And S. 1798
has a great deal of support in the Congress. For example, along with
Senators Udall and Corker, the bill has the following Senate
co-sponsors: Senators Lamar Alexander, Jeff Bingaman, Richard
Blumenthal, Bob Casey, Dean Heller, Claire McCaskill, Jeff Merkley, Bill
Nelson, John D. Rockefeller IV, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Olympia
Snowe, Jon Tester and Mark Udall. In the House, the co-sponsors of H.R.
3337 are Representatives Joe Baca, Roscoe Bartlett, Dan Benishek,
Shelley Berkley, Earl Blumenauer, Madeleine Bordallo, Russ Carnahan,
Andre Carson, Kathy Castor, Judy Chu, David Cicilline, Gerry Connolly,
John Conyers, Joe Courtney, Mark Critz, Peter DeFaio, Bob Filner, J.
Randy Forbes, Trent Franks, Tim Griffin, Raul Grijalva, Luis Gutierre,
Richard Hanna, Vicky Hartzler, Joseph Heck, Martin Heinrich, Randy
Hultgren, Steve Israel, Hank Johnson, Walter Jones, Marcy Kaptur, Larry
Kissel, Tom Latham, Barbara Lee, Daniel Lipinski, Fran LoBiondo, Billy
Long, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Ben Ray Lujan, Tom Marino, Jim McDermott, Jim
McGovern, Mike Michaud, Tim Murphy, Elenor Holmes Norton, Richard
Nugent, Alan Nunnelee, William Owens, Steven Pearce, Chelle Pingree,
Bill Posey, Charlie Rangel, Scott Rigell, David Roe, Jon Runyan, Tim
Ryan, Adam Schiff, Allyson Schwartz, Adam Smith, Pete Stark, Mike
Thompson, Paul Tonko, Michael Turner and Robert Wittman.
That's a lot of support for proposed legislation.
But remember this?
I
am here today to testify about a tragedy that took place in 2003 on the
outskirts of Basra in Iraq. I am here on behalf of Lt Col James Gentry
and the brave men and women who served under his command in the First
Battalion, 152nd Infantry of the Indiana National Guard. I spoke with Lt
Col Gentry by phone just this last week. Unfortunately, he is at home
with his wife, Luanne, waging a vliant fight against terminal cancer.
The Lt Col was a healthy man when he left for Iraq. Today, he is
fighting for his life. Tragically, many of his men are facing their own
bleak prognosis as a result of their exposure to sodium dichromate, one
of the most lethal carcinogens in existence. The chemical is used as an
anti-corrosive for pipes. It was strewn all over the water treatment
facility guarded by the 152nd Infantry. More than 600 soldiers from
Indiana, Oregon, West Virginia and South Carolina were exposed. One
Indiana Guardsman has already died from lung disease and the Army has
classified it as a service-related death. Dozens of the others have come
forward with a range of serious-respiratory symptoms. [. . .] Mr.
Chairman, today I would like to tell this Committee about S1779. It is
legislation that I have written to ensure that we provide full and
timely medical care to soldiers exposed to hazardous chemicals during
wartime military service like those on the outskirts of Basra. The
Health Care for Veterans Exposed to Chemical Hazards Act of 2009 is
bipartisan legislation that has already been co-sponsored by Senators
Lugar, Dorgan, Rockefeller, Byrd, Wyden and Merkley. With a CBO score of
just $10 million, it is a bill with a modest cost but a critical
objective: To enusre that we do right by America's soldiers exposed to
toxic chemicals while defending our country. This bill is modeled after
similar legislation that Congress approved in 1978 following the Agent
Orange exposure in the Vietnam conflict.
That's
then-Senator Evan Bayh speaking to the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee on behalf of the Burn Pit Registry October 21, 2009. Just
like Senator Udall did today.
And Bayh
believed there would be action on it. He believed in the issue and he
had support in Congress. But the person who killed Bayh's bill is still
on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. He's not running for
re-election (he can't after that and after his fit over the benefits
Secretary of the VA Eric Shinseki extended to the victims of Agent
Orange). But he's still on the Committee. And as I watched Senator Jim
Webb in the hearing, I saw the same bored look he gave when Bayh spoke
of the importance of this proposed legislation in 2009.
I
support the registry. I think it's needed. I supported when Bayh
proposed it and I applaud Evan and former-Senator Byron Dorgan for all
the hard work they did highlighting the burn pit issue, educating the
Congress and we the American people on this issue.
I
find it appalling that there's been no leadership on this issue from
the White House. Barack Obama has repeatedly lied about the American
people with regards to Vietnam. Most recently, he did so on Memorial
Day.
If the veterans of Vietnam were betrayed
(I believe they were), it was the government that betrayed them. It
betrayed them first of all by sending them to Vietnam. It further
betrayed them when they returned. We can list one example after another
but the one that's pertinent here is the Agent Orange registry. It was
not until the 90s that it was created. Agent Orange was a destructive
agent used in Vietnam and the effects on people exposed to it were
severe.
It was not the American people that
ordered Agent Orange to be sprayed. It was not the American people that
fought one legal battle against Vietnam veterans after another denying
that Agent Orange did any harm. It was not the American people that did
not support an Agent Orange Registry which could be used to ensure
medical care and medical benefits.
It was
the American government. And it's the American government today -- the
one he heads -- that's refusing to allow a Burn Pit Registry. Let's
hope everyone following the issue registers that. And registers how
hollow his words are when he starts talking about 'turning your back on
veterans' if he's refusing to champion the Burn Pit Registry.
Why
is it needed right now? Because there's still a small focus in the
press on veterans. Iraq's off the page, Afghanistan's sliding. Once
the attention's gone, it's gone. And that was part of the problem with
the Agent Orange Registry. Many politicians and officials knew their
refusal to implement it wouldn't result in massive press coverage.
Vietnam veterans couldn't afford all the years they had to wait (and
many have only received help and recognition since Eric Shinseki became
VA Secretary). Iraq and Afghanistan veterans can't afford to wait years
either.
Turning to the topic of Two and a Half Men . . . James Jeffrey, Ryan Crocker and adolescent Chris Hill signed a letter. Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) reports
the three signed a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
insisting that Brett McGurk is qualified to be the US Ambassador to
Iraq. Jeffrey is the outgoing US Ambassador to Iraq. Chris Hill was
the nightmare ambassador. Prior to Hill's brief stint, Ryan Crocker
served as US Ambassador to Iraq. Rogin writes, "In their letter, the
former ambassadors argue that McGurk showed his understanding of the
complexities facing Iraq in his June 6 confirmation hearing and said
that he has the full trust and confidence of the current leadership team
at the embassy. " I'm sorry, where were they?
They weren't at the hearing. I was. How can they vouch for his performance at a hearing they didn't attend?
They
can't. And this isn't the 1960s. Meaning forget the press coverage
because there was none. Note to what passes for a press corps: Your
'great job, Brett!' wasn't reporting. Most outlets ignored the hearing
completely (including TV evening news). Find a report where they report
what McGurk said and examine if it was accurate. You can't find that
in the MSM. We covered it here, the hearing, in three snapshots. We
covered what he said versus reality. We covered it in the editorial for Third as well:
McGurk took credit for the surge.
The only aspect of the surge that was successful was what Gen David
Petraeus implemented and US service members carried out. That was not
what McGurk and other civilians were tasked with. Their part of the
surge? The military effort was supposed to create a space that the
politicians would put to good use by passing legislation. It didn't
happen. McGurk's part of the surge was a failure.He
revealed incredible ignorance about al Qaeda in Iraq and seemed unaware
that, in 2011, then-CIA Director (now Secretary of Defense) Leon
Panetta told Congress it amounted to less than 1,000 people or that in
February of this year, the Director of National Intelligence declared
that a significnat number (of that less than 1,000) had gone to Syria.Though
the press has reported for years about Nouri's refusal to bring Sahwa
members into the process (give them jobs) and how he refuses to pay
these security forces (also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq"),
McGurk told Congress that Nouri was paying them all and had given
government jobs to approximately 70,000. (For point of reference, in 2008, Gen David Petraues told Congress there were approximately 91,000 Sahwa.)
It's
really easy to pretend someone's 'qualified' when you refuse to do the
work required to vet the nominee. Those links above don't go to MSM
reporting on the hearing because there is NO MSN reporting on the
hearing. They go to the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday snapshot (as
well as a 2008 snapshot for Petreaus' testimony in 2008). The press
didn't do the job they're paid to. You can say they're overworked and
many are. But that doesn't excuse anyone filing a 'report' that fails
to examine one word of what was said, that fails to provide context.
There's a world of difference a transcript and a report or a 'feelings
check' and a report. No reporting was done by the MSM on McGurk's
hearing.
AP reported
this morning that Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
were drafting a letter that would ask the White House to pull McGurk's
nomination. Aamer Madhani (USA Today) posted
the letter which expresses concern over his management experience and
his judgment (as well as his ability to work with Iraqis -- remember the
political slate that won the 2010 elections, Iraqiya, has asked that he
not be made ambassador).
Now
before the hearing we were reporting on the e-mails. I say that because
I cannot believe the stupidity of so-called professional writers.
Tuesday, June 5th, we were reporting on the e-mails between Brett McGurk
and Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon who began an affair in 2008 and concealed it from their superiors. Yesterday, Chon lost her job. Lisa Dru (Business Insider) reported on the news as well and includes the Wall St. Journal's statement:
Wall Street Journal
reporter Gina Chon agreed to resign this afternoon after acknowledging
that while based in Iraq she violated the Dow Jones Code of Conduct by
sharing certain unpublished news articles with Brett McGurk, then a
member of the U.S. National Security Council in Iraq.
In
2008 Ms. Chon entered into a personal relationship with Mr. McGurk,
which she failed to disclose to her editor. At this time the Journal has
found no evidence that her coverage was tainted by her relationship
with Mr. McGurk.
Ms.
Chon joined the Journal in 2005 in Detroit, followed by an assignment
as Iraq correspondent in Baghdad from 2007 to 2009. She also reported
for the Journal from Haiti in 2010 in the aftermath of the earthquake
and has served as a M&A reporter for Money & Investing in New
York since April 2010.
Dru's done a fine job reporting on the e-mails and the issues. We're about to get to two who are doing a lousy job.
Reality,
Chon was asked to resign and given the choice of resigning or being
fired. She opted to resign. Let's start with Maressa Brown whose work
experience is "entertainment and women's magazines." It shows, dear, it really shows.
Maressa Brown's "not quite sure Chon should have had to lose her job
over the affair itself" -- if your company has a code of ethics, you
follow it or your risk losing your job.
In
addition, those ethics were the same code of ethics of any professional
news outlet. Now I know, in entertainment writing, you're encouraged to
sleep with your interview subject. But in most fields of journalism,
you're only paid for the story, not for also granting sexual favors.
Maressa
Brown might want to consider that and might want to consider that Gina
Chon's little love life shouldn't mean a thing to the readers of the Wall St. Journal. They shouldn't know about it, they shouldn't follow it. Those rules, ethics, they exist for that reason.
The
public is supposed to be able to trust that everything is ethical.
Gina Chon's decision to sleep with her source was grounds for instant
termination. Michele Norris is one of the finest radio journalists
around. She's a host of NPR's All Things Considered.
She's got reporting chops and she's earned a reputation of being a fair
and accurate journalist. To ensure that she's seen that way, she and
NPR agreed early on that if her husband was working for a campaign, she
couldn't cover it. Last October, Norris went on an extended leave from All Things Considered. She explains why here:
Hello everyone,
I need to share some news and I wanted to make sure my NPR family heard this first.
Last
week, I told news management that my husband, Broderick Johnson, has
just accepted a senior advisor position with the Obama Campaign. After
careful consideration, we decided that Broderick's new role could make
it difficult for me to continue hosting ATC.
Given
the nature of Broderick's position with the campaign and the impact
that it will most certainly have on our family life, I will temporarily
step away from my hosting duties until after the 2012 elections.
I
will be leaving the host chair at the end of this week, but I'm not
going far. I will be wearing a different hat for a while, producing
signature segments and features and working on new reporting projects.
While I will of course recuse myself from all election coverage, there's
still an awful lot of ground that I can till in this interim role.
This
has all happened very quickly, but working closely with NPR management,
we've been able to make a plan that serves the show, honors the
integrity of our news organization and is best for me professionally and
personally.
I will certainly miss hosting, but I will remain part of the ATC team and I look forward to contributing to our show and NPR in new and exciting ways.
My very best,
Michele
Again,
Michele Norris a well known reporter with a sterling reputation for her
work. And yet, she follows the rules. She goes out of her way to make
sure there is no appearence of a conflict of interest. She doesn't
say, "Oh, well, everybody knows my husband is working on campaigns so
since everybody knows, it doesn't matter." She's a serious journalist
who takes her profession seriously.
Dow Jones
cannot afford the reputation of employing Little Ms. or Mr. Hot Pants
who's going to sleep with the source and then possibly cater the news to
benefit their lover. Dow Jones has a reputation to uphold. Chon
probably could have gotten away with what she did -- which wouldn't have
made it ethical -- if she'd worked for a different outlet. But Dow
Jones is a considered a trusted name and the reason for that is they
don't tolerate unethical reporters.
People
need to let go of the idea that this is love story or it's a happy
ending. I'm not concerned with whether Chon's found happiness or not.
I'm concerned with the fact that she was the chief reporter on Iraq for
the paper in 2008 and she was sleeping with a US government official.
That would be the ultimate embed. How much did that color what she
reported?
I don't know and that's a question
that a real news outlet never wants any news consumer to have to ask.
That's why there is a code of ethics.
Bonnie Goldstein (Washington Post) wants
to talk about the "brutal" confirmation process while, as an aside,
noting the e-mails didn't come up in the hearing. No, they didn't. As I
explained here already, I learned about the e-mails in a senator's
office (a senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). (I
overheard a conversation, there was not a leak.) That was Tuesday
afternoon. The Committee was aware of the e-mails on Tuesday (the day
before the hearing), they just weren't aware if they were genuine or
not. (I can say a great deal more about that on the Democratic side but
I'll stay silent right now while I wait to see what happens.) McGurk
was fawned over. In addition, this story should have been all over but
it's not. The Washington Post is covering it. One of the few papers
that is. CJR has daily blogs and were just posting about 'racy e-mails'
last week but they've ignored this story and the ethics involved.
Goldstein writes:
Having read some of the correspondence in an excerpt in the Above the Law
blog, I have to say it presents unusual but material evidence of
McGurk's qualification to work with the reconstruction team and the
Iraqi government. His sequencing choices notwithstanding, the written
correspondence indicates the nominee possesses confidence, sincerity and
a lovely sense of humor (a quality I suspect he's needing to call on in
great quantities as this painfully personal matter gets sorted out in
public ... ).
Next time, try reading
the e-mails posted, not excerpts and trying paying attention to what
you're reading not on how wet it makes you.
In
the e-mails it is very clear -- and was on Tuesday afternoon when I
left the senator's office and pulled up the e-mails on my iPhone. It
wasn't hard, it wasn't difficult. And maybe next time you should read
all of them before weighing in. Brett McGurk's words are very clear.
Ryan Crocker did not know about the affair. Whether Crocker wants to
take a bullet for him now or not doesn't matter. It's in writing,
Crocker didn't know, McGurk was concealing the affair. Now he was
married and that's one reason he was concealing. But that doesn't
excuse it, it actually adds to more problems because when the government
sends you to another country to represent the US, you put your best
face forward. Not your trashy, bootie call face. But your best face.
(Scary thought, what if trolling for women is the best face of Brett McGurk.)
It
sure is cute to read Bonnie's stupidity and Maressa's as well. Little
girls, grow the hell up and pay attention, we're going to go over it one
more time.
Iraq is a country. It's not a
mythical place. People actually live there. Children are born there.
For children to be born -- pay attention, girls -- women have to be
present.
The Iraq War has destroyed the rights
of women in Iraq. Now I know, Maressa and Bonnie, that you're both too
lazy to have ever attended a hearing in the last year on what the State
Dept's doing in Iraq. But among the excuses they've sent lower-level
flunkies in with is that they are working on women's rights.
Yes, the country that destroyed Iraqi women's rights now will supposedly fix them.
So
Bonnie, Maressa, tell me how in a country in which so many males are
embracing fundamentalism, in which so-called 'honor' killings regularly
take place (women are put to death -- usually by family members -- for
so-called crimes against 'honor' -- sex, divorce, being the victim of a
rape, etc.), tell me how Iraqi women can comfortably visit the Embassy
if Brett McGurk is the Ambassador?
Brett
McGurk is all over the Iraqi press. Kitabat, you name it. They are
covering this story. No surprise. And McGurk's got a little reputation
now in Iraq. So tell me please, Bonnie, Maressa, how the hell are
Iraqi women going to be served by a US Ambassador they can't be alone
with unless they want to risk an honor killing or something more.
Let's
be really clear, the only males that get killed for these
so-called 'honor' killings are ones thought to be gay. The man that
sleeps with a woman or that rapes a woman or that divorces is not put to
death. Just the woman.
And you want to tell me that Mr. Can't Keep It In His Pants is the best Iraqi women can hope for?
Bonnie
and Maressa, it's time you both woke up and realized that your
little fantasies of romance are something you should save for when
you're alone, Right now you should be focusing on Iraqi women. No, it
won't bring you to orgasm, but less focus on yourself for once in
your lives might make you better women.
Essay
topic: What is the connection between thinking and writing? Short
answer: Maressa and Bonnie demonstrate there is none. They not only
ignore the fact that a man who sends out blue balls e-mails to a woman
he has not yet slept with probably isn't the one to supervise female
employees, they also don't even bother to consider the fate of Iraqi
women. Shame on you both, shame, shame.
Here's
another tip for those covering it, 'McGurk didn't disclose any
classified . . .' You don't know what he did. He's never gone on the
record about this relationship. He's avoided the press and it wasn't
raised in his hearing. RT gets it right,
"Though the Journal believes that Chon disclosed information on
unpublished articles with McGurk, it is not yet clear if he had shared
any classified intel with the reporter. " It is not yet clear. You
stumble onto a topic at the last minute, manage to write a few
paragraphs and want to pretend like you know what took place when no
questions have been asked, let alone answered? Margaret Carlson writes a column on the topic for Bloomberg here and I'll be kind and leave it at that. (Tomorrow we may devote several paragraphs to it.)
Today
Iraq was slammed with multiple bombings in what's been called the
deadliest attack since December 18th (when most US troops left Iraq). AP offers a timeline of the attacks since then. Emily Buchanan (BBC News -- link is video) notes
ten locations in Baghdad alone and that the first bombing struck at
five this morning. In Kirkuk, Buchanan noted, the headquarters of
Massoud Barzani's political party was targeted. (Massoud Barzani is the
President of the KRG. His political party is the Kurdistan Democratic
Party.) Lee Moran (Daily Mail -- link is text, video and photos) reports most of the people targeted in Baghdad were pilgrims while security forces were targeted elsewhere in Iraq. Kitabat notes
that the pilgrims are making the holy journey on the anniversary of the
death of Imam Musa al-Kadhim Saturday. Moran counts 13 bombings
across Iraq today. Alsumaria counts 32 bombings in 8 of Iraq's 18 provinces. There were also shootings as Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) notes,
"Gunmen also attacked a house north of Baquba, killing a father and
wounding his wife and three children, while a car bomb against a police
patrol in the city wounded four people, the [police] colonel said." Alsumaria notes that Mosul saw a car bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left another and two bystanders injured. Alsumaria notes the Baghdad bombings included one in the military barracks which injured four soldiers. In addition, Alsumaria notes
1 Sahwa was killed in an armed attack to the south west of Baquba --
this was a "Daughter of Iraq" (as the female Sahwa are also known). The Telegraph of London counts
63 dead and notes, "The attacks were the third this week targeting the
annual pilgrimage that sees hundreds of thousands of Shiites converge on
Baghdad on foot to commemorate the 8th century death of revered Imam
Moussa al-Kadhim." Yes, they were. And shouldn't someone be noting
that, as AP reported early yesterday morning,
that Nouri's spokesperson announced he had stepped up security. He had
stepped up security. Now his plan is to make tomorrow a holiday.
AFP's Prashant Rao re-Tweets his collegue's Tweet on the death toll:
Haddad Salih (BBC News) observes,
"Soon after the attacks, websites of local political parties critical
of Shia Prime Minister Nouri Maliki blamed the political crisis in which
Iraq has been embroiled for the past few months. But Mr Maliki's State
of Law coalition pointed the finger of blame at the recent failure of
attempts by the prime minister's rivals to topple him with a vote of
no-confidence." Well Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to appoint a Minister
of Defense, Minister of Interiror and Minister of National Security to
move from prime minister-designate to prime minister. He was named
prime minister-designate in November 2010. He was made prime minister
in December 2010. He has still refused to nominate anyone for the posts
because this allows him to control them. So if there's a problem with
the violence -- I think most people would agree there was -- that goes
to Nouri. He's the Minister of Defense, he's the Minister of Interior,
he's the Minister of National Security. Why won't he protect the
people? That should be the cry he faces every day.
Back to the US and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. As usual, Kat
will cover Ranking Member Richard Burr at her site tonight. There are
other aspects of the hearing that we may cover tomorrow. If there's
interest, we can easily include coverage of the hearing in tomorrow and
Friday's snapshot. We are very limited for space tonight. So we'll
note some of a news release from Committee Chair Patty Murray's office
(and we'll note the release in full in tomorrow's snapshot):
Today,
under questioning from Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced
that he has ordered the heads of every branch of the U.S. military to
review diagnoses for the invisible wounds of war going back to 2001. The
Secretary's announcement comes after Murray worked to spur a similar review by the Army which arose from hundreds of soldiers being misdiagnosed and in many cases accused of faking the symptoms of PTSD at Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington state.
"The Pentagon and the VA are losing the battle on mental and behavioral health conditions," Murray told the Secretary at today's hearing. Murray also noted that the Army has already begun a system-wide review saying "This
is not just an Army disability evaluation system. This is a joint DOD
and VA program covering all of the services. Why has the Department not
taken the lead in evaluating and making improvements to this system?"
"What I've asked is the other service chiefs to implement the same approach that the Army's taken" Secretary Panetta responded. "…I'm
not satisfied either. We're doing everything we can to try to build a
better system between the Pentagon, the Department of Defense and VA.
But there are still huge gaps in terms of the differences in terms of
how they approach these cases and how they diagnose the cases and how
they deal with them, and frankly, that's a whole area we have to do much
better on."
| 
