"Obama prepares to revamp agenda on foreign policy" by Mark Landler | New York Times May 25, 2014
WASHINGTON — President Obama, seeking to answer criticism that he has forsaken America’s leadership role, plans to lay out a retooled foreign policy agenda Wednesday that could deepen the nation’s involvement in Syria but would still steer clear of major military conflicts.
In a commencement address at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Obama will seek, yet again, to articulate his view of the proper US response to a cascade of crises, from Syria’s civil war to Russia’s incursions in Ukraine, according to a senior administration official who is helping draft the speech.
Sketching familiar arguments but on a broader canvas, Obama will stress his determination to chart a middle course between isolationism and military intervention. The United States, he said, should be at the fulcrum of efforts to curb aggression by Russia and China, though not at the price of “fighting in eight or nine proxy wars.”
After more than 10 years of expanded empire and more wars, I don't
“It’s a case for interventionism but not overreach,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said in an interview. “We are leading, we are the only country that leads, but that leadership has to be in service of an international system.”
I'm tired of the globalist cover for advancing Israel's agenda, sorry.
Obama, however, will emphasize Syria’s growing status as a haven for terrorist groups, some of which are linked to Al Qaeda, officials said. That could open the door to greater US support for the rebels, including heavier weapons, though no decisions have been made.
WHAT!? Syria a haven for Al-CIA-Duh with more U.S.-supplied weapons? Talk about self-fulfilling privacy.
The president’s speech will kick off an intense, administration-wide effort to counter critics who say the United States is lurching from crisis to crisis, without a grand plan for dealing with a treacherous world.
Related: Syria the Cornerstone of Neo-Con Plan
While such critiques slight Obama’s accomplishments, Rhodes said, he conceded the president had not put his priorities, from climate change to the nuclear talks with Iran, into a comprehensive framework.
Obama plans to elaborate on his ideas during a trip to Europe in early June.
Thanks for contributing to the global warming problem, a$$hole.
Over the next few weeks, the White House will roll out issue-specific speeches from Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and other senior officials.
Related: Hagel warns China on aggressive moves; Beijing scoffs
That is a different Sunday Globe Special for another time.
“We understand that there are a lot of questions swirling around not just our foreign policy but America’s role in the world,” Rhodes said. “People are seeing the trees, but we’re not necessarily laying out the forest.”
The trouble is, as Obama takes a stage where his predecessors have signaled new directions in foreign policy — George W. Bush used a West Point speech in 2002 to revive the principle of preemptive military strikes — his ideas are likely to have a familiar ring.
I guess that is why it's not going over well with me, the same old war-mongering $hit.
In a speech on terrorism last year, he warned of an arc of Islamic extremism stretching from the Middle East to North Africa, which he said was the successor to the Al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan that was fought with troops and drones.
Thus the excuse to raid Africa for its resources.
The president’s calibrated rationale for military intervention will draw on a speech he gave in 2011 justifying US backing for NATO airstrikes on Libya.
Yeah, I wanted to say something about that because LIBYA is OBUMMER'S OWN HOOK! That one is all him! No blaming Bush for that one.
And his broad definition of America’s responsibilities as a global power will inevitably echo the principles he outlined in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009.
Yeah, people will be wanting to know if they are next on the U.S. overthrow list.
Btw, you can throw away that meaningless prize, too.
Critics are also likely to argue that Obama’s words have not been backed up by actions.
Thank God for that.
Administration officials, for example, have long promised to bolster support for Syrian rebels. But they have so far refused to supply them with antiaircraft missiles because they fear that these weapons could fall into the hands of extremists.
I'm tired of this double-talk obfuscation.
Obama’s anguished response to Syria has hung over the White House and fueled critics who say the president’s foreign policy is rudderless: He threatened, then pulled back on, a missile strike against Syria for its use of chemical weapons and resisted pleas for greater US involvement, even as the death toll rises above 160,000.
Pulled back because John Kerry's offhand comment that the deserved Peace Prize winner -- Vladimir Putin -- seized on to forestall U.S. attack.
As for the chemical weapons use, that was by AmeriKan-backed rebels -- if it happened at all.
“I realized last night that the administration has no policy in Syria, has no strategy in Syria,” Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday. He had just attended a White House wine-and-cheese reception to discuss foreign policy, a gathering he described as “very bizarre.”
What he means is they are not sufficiently pro-Israel.
Denis R. McDonough, White House chief of staff, said he and Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, invited Corker and other senators because national security issues are going to loom large in coming weeks and the administration wanted to consult Congress. “I thought we had a good back-and-forth,” he said.
So WHAT WARS, INVASIONS, or OTHER MILITARY ACTIONS are going to be taken THIS SUMMER, and WHICH FALSE FLAG will be kicking them off?
--more--"
"Obama lays out a defense of foreign policy; Says diplomacy, force both needed in murky world" by Mark Landler | New York Times May 29, 2014
WEST POINT, N.Y. — President Obama tried once more to articulate his vision of the American role in the world Wednesday, telling graduating cadets at the United States Military Academy that the nation they were being called to serve would seek to avoid military misadventures abroad, even as it confronts a new set of terrorist threats from the Middle East to Africa.
In other words, no change.
Speaking at the academy’s commencement, Obama disputed critics who say his cautious response to crises like Syria’s civil war and Russian aggression toward Ukraine had eroded US leadership in the world. Those critics, he said, were “either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”
And you are delusional.
But for a president who has promised to take the United States off a permanent war footing, Obama painted an unsettling portrait of the world, 13 years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The nation, he said, had, in effect, traded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan for a more diffuse threat from extremists in Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Mali, and other countries.
Then the 12 years of war, the torture, and all the lies it was based on have FAILED!
A day after announcing that the last US soldier will leave Afghanistan at the end of 2016, Obama told a new class of Army officers that some of them would be sent on murkier missions, helping endangered nations deal with their own terrorist groups.
You told us 2014!
In the only new policy announcement of the speech, he called on Congress to finance what he called a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, with up to $5 billion to provide training in these operations to vulnerable countries like Iraq, Lebanon, and Turkey, all neighbors of Syria....
As he preaches austerity and helplessness in the face of the deficit when it comes to programs Americans want and have paid for.
The president has spoken before about the threat from terrorism, most notably in a speech last May at the National Defense University. But on those occasions he had taken pains to note that the threat was on a lesser scale than the Sept. 11 attacks and could be dealt with “smartly and proportionately.”
On Wednesday, his language was more ominous:
Obama singled out Syria, which he said was becoming a haven for extremists, a situation that his critics have attributed in part to his own unwillingness to take more aggressive action.
He's the one that poured the Al-CIA-Duh mercenaries in there!
While pledging to strengthen US support for the opposition — something he has done several times before — the president did not discuss expanding the CIA’s covert training program for Syrian rebels in Jordan, or perhaps bringing in the military, an option that is being discussed inside the administration.
Thought that was important.
A senior administration official said after the speech that the White House was consulting with Congress about ways to expand the military’s role in counterterrorism operations. But he declined to say whether the administration had decided on a bigger Pentagon role in Syria and noted there were other ways to help the opposition.
When is the false flag?
Little in Obama’s tone suggested he had dropped his reluctance to get involved militarily in Syria, a position that has not changed despite three years of war and a death toll above 160,000.
Did you get that? Coming this summer when you ain't looking!
“I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian war, and I believe that is the right decision,” Obama said. “But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people.”
He's a fine one to talk! What out-of-touch arrogance!
Weeks in the drafting, the president’s speech was meant to be a wide-ranging rebuttal to critics who say he should have done more to curb the bloodshed in Syria or stop Russia’s takeover of Crimea.
They were asked to come in with a vote, but why quibble when it is NYT crap?
But it also rejected arguments that the United States should retreat from its post-World War II centrality in global affairs.
Then we are finished as an empire.
Obama instead called for a middle course between isolationism and overreach, citing the international coalition the United States had mobilized to counter Russia’s aggression in Ukraine as an example of how to use American muscle “without firing a shot.”
Of course, that deal collapsed just after it was announced. Europe not going along because it would destroy their economies.
--more--"
Another review of the speech:
"As wars end, so too must president’s wartime powers | May 30, 2014
President Obama’s much-anticipated foreign policy speech at West Point on Wednesday contained plenty of soaring oration and one concrete proposal: establishing a new $5 billion “counterterrorism partnership fund” to train and equip allies abroad who are battling terrorist threats.
The idea is a good one on a number of fronts. Given the rise of extremist militias in Mali, Nigeria, Yemen, and elsewhere, it makes sense to boost the capacity of local partners. As threats multiply and spread across the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, it’s wise to remain nimble and flexible, and avoid getting bogged down in any one place. Training partners is also cost effective. For example, the United States spent roughly $600 million to support African Union troops in Somalia over the past seven years. By comparison, the US military in Afghanistan burns through that in less than three days.
But as good as this proposal might sound, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, details have been scarce. Members of Congress have reportedly complained that the speech was the first they had heard of this proposal. It is not yet clear how this fund would differ from the billions that have already been spent on counterterrorism cooperation.
But perhaps the biggest problem with this proposal is that it does not address the most important question looming over US counterterrorism activities abroad: What legal authority will the US forces operate under once the war in Afghanistan draws to a close?
Yes, God help us if we didn't have an illegitimate fig leaf to wage illegal wars!
Currently, most US counterterrorism actions in Afghanistan and beyond take place under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, passed on September 14, 2001, which grants the president the power to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the September 11th terrorist attacks.
In so many ways, that official lie is the root of all evil.
Although the act was meant to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both the Bush and Obama administrations have stretched the limits of this power and applied it to groups that had little to do with the 9/11 attacks.
Obama has dropped even more drones on people than Bush. Definitely not the change I expected.
Despite Obama’s repeated assertions that “the tide of war is receding,” his administration has done little to move away from these sweeping wartime powers, nor has he spelled out what authorities he feels he needs to retain to keep Americans safe.
It's on it's way back in now.
At a hearing last week on the issue, Obama administration lawyers declined to publicly list which groups it targets under this war authorization. Al Shabab in Somalia? Al Nusra in Syria? No one knows for sure.
This from the transparent president.
That puts the American people in the bizarre position of being at war, but not knowing who we are fighting.
A recipe for endle$$ war. 1984 in 2014!
Given the lack of transparency, and the many years that have passed since 2001, it is a good thing that members of Congress are attempting to end or amend this outdated war authorization. Indeed, after the draw-down on US troops in Afghanistan, there will be little justification for keeping it. Rather than merely seeking new money for counterterrorism partnerships, the Obama administration must urgently come to an agreement with Congress about what authorities the president will have to conduct counterterrorism operations overseas in the future.
--more--"
Related:
President Barack W. Bush
Bush Endorses Obama's Agenda
What more do you need?
Are we out of Afghanistan yet?
"Obama plans 2016 deadline for Afghan exit" by Mark Landler | New York Times May 28, 2014
WASHINGTON — President Obama, declaring that it is “time to turn the page on a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” announced Tuesday that he plans to withdraw the last US troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.
Under a new timetable outlined by Obama in the Rose Garden, the approximately 32,000 US troops in Afghanistan would be reduced to 9,800 after this year. That number would be cut in half by the end of 2015, and by the end of 2016, there would be only a vestigial force to protect the embassy in Kabul and to help the Afghans with military purchases and security matters.
So we are NOT REALLY LEAVING in 2016, either!!
What a LYING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!
At the height of American involvement, in 2011, the United States had 101,000 troops in the country.
I want 0!!!
Obama said the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan would free up resources to confront an emerging terrorist threat stretching from the Middle East to North Africa — a strategy he plans to detail in a commencement address on Wednesday at the US Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.
How convenient!
“Americans have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them,” he said. “Yet this is how wars end in the 21st century.”
Yeah, tell us about it! That's why we protested going in in the first place!
Despite Obama’s attempt to signal the end of 13 years of US military engagement in Afghanistan, the United States will continue to have troops engaged in lethal counterterrorism operations there for at least two more years.
Except it is not ending in two years. What with the deceit, NYT?
The president also conceded that the United States would leave behind a deeply ambiguous legacy.
I don't think so, not at all. We are leaving behind millions dead and injured, a legacy of torture, environmental degradation, cultural humiliation, and a booming opium trade.
“We have to recognize Afghanistan will not be a perfect place, and it is not America’s responsibility to make it one,” he said. “The future of Afghanistan must be decided by Afghans.”
He says that after we wrecked the place and killed so many people?
I'm not going to type all the curses filling my head.
Republican critics in Congress said that, even though Obama accepted the recommendation of his generals to leave behind a substantial residual force, the rigid deadline for troops’ departure could expose Afghanistan to the same violence and instability that has erupted in Iraq since the pullout of the last US soldiers in 2011. Military commanders had recommended leaving at least 10,000 troops in Afghanistan for several years after the formal end of the combat mission in 2014.
Besides carrying out operations against the remnants of Al Qaeda, the troops that stay behind will train Afghan security forces. But from 2015 onward, they will be quartered at Bagram Airfield and in Kabul, the capital. While they will be supplemented by NATO troops, alliance members are likely to follow the US lead in pulling out by the end of 2016.
The unilateral nature of Obama’s announcement underscored the loss of trust between him and President Hamid Karzai, who has refused to sign a long-term security agreement with the United States. Any US deployments after 2014 will hinge on the Afghans’ signing the agreement, Obama said, though he noted that both candidates in the runoff election to replace Karzai have promised to do so.
See: Afghanistan's Promising Presidential Election
Obama briefed Karzai by phone on Tuesday morning, as well as leaders of three NATO partners with troops in Afghanistan: Britain, Germany, and Italy. On Sunday, Karzai declined an invitation to meet the president at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, where Obama had made an unannounced trip to greet the troops.
See: Saluting War Criminals
The president is clearly driven by a determination to shift the focus of his counterterrorism policy from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan to a more diffuse set of militant threats, some linked to Al Qaeda, that have sprung up from Syria to Nigeria.
(Blog editor shaking his head because the Al-CIA-Duh lie has been outed for so long)
On Wednesday, an official said, Obama will emphasize Syria’s growing status as a haven for terrorism and signal greater support for the opposition. Among the options on the table, officials said, is expanding the covert training program for rebels, currently run by the CIA in Jordan — perhaps by bringing in the Pentagon to conduct the training.
That means EVEN DEEPER INVOLVEMENT! The INCREMENTALISM is reminiscent of Vietnam!
The training could also take place in nearby countries. But the official cautioned that the president had not made a decision and was unlikely to discuss the matter in any detail at West Point.
He is, however, expected to pledge greater US support for the counterterrorism efforts of Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and other countries that border Syria.
Obama’s Afghanistan announcement has ignited a broader debate about military strategy and the most effective way to wind down a war.
As if everything broken is going to be glued back together in a neat little bow.
A senior administration official said a fixed withdrawal schedule would provide NATO allies and the Afghans with “predictability” while also driving home the limits of the US effort.
We were told for years that would notify the enemy, blah, blah, blah.
Un-frikkin'-believable.
“We never signed up to be a permanent security force in Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban,” said the official, who asked not to be identified under White House protocol for briefing reporters.
But we will be one anyway.
But some former military officers said that troop withdrawal decisions should be based on an assessment of the conditions on the ground, especially in a country as complex as Afghanistan.
We are not leaving anyway, so what are they complaining about?
--more--"
Now my war paper tells me even the Afghans do not want us to leave!
"Afghans fear US withdrawal will leave them to fight alone" by Kevin Sieff | Washington Post May 29, 2014
Related: AmeriKa Has Lost Afghanistan
And that was three years ago! This is what ending a war in the 21st-century is like, huh?
KABUL — For Americans, President Obama’s announcement of a rapid military drawdown in Afghanistan, due to conclude in 2016, means an end to the United States’ longest war.
For Afghans, including those fighting the Taliban, it means they will soon lose their greatest asset: a US military that has poured money and manpower into a war that is far from over. They knew that the support would fade but not that it would happen so quickly.
The announcement that the US mission would end in 2016 revealed the disjunction between the White House’s plans and the hopes of many here.
A bilateral security agreement crafted by top US officials and released to the public last year outlined an American military mission that could remain active ‘‘until the end of 2024 and beyond.’’ Although that agreement has yet to be signed, many Afghans interpreted it to mean that the United States would maintain a troop presence here until at least 2024.
Many here worry that the two-year drawdown could mean the loss of some foreign aid, with the US Congress reluctant to approve funding if no troops remain in Afghanistan to monitor how the money is being spent. Others worry that the end of the US counterterrorism mission here could lead to a resurgence in militants. As US troops draw down from 9,800 in early 2015, it is likely that the counterterrorism effort will end long before the overall mission concludes.
I would like to know who "many" and "others" are. What $hit propaganda!
But as Afghans listened to bleak assessments of Obama’s announcement on television and radio, US military officials were quick to argue that the post-2014 mission is a testament to America’s long-term commitment here.
I want a divorce.
‘‘I believe that decision was good news for the Afghan people,” said General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the top US commander in Afghanistan. “It eliminates the uncertainty about the future here in Afghanistan, in the region, and within the coalition.’’
Keep shoveling, general.
--more--"
Here is how many graves he had to dig:
"Roadside bombings kill 4 Afghans" Associated Press May 30, 2014
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Roadside bombings across Afghanistan killed four people Thursday as officials reported that a NATO soldier died in a helicopter crash in Kandahar the previous day.
The crash, in which 15 coalition service members were injured, happened after the helicopter accidentally struck a communications antenna on Wednesday, an Afghan official said.
In northern Jawzjan province, a roadside bomb hit the car of the intelligence chief of Aqcha district on Thursday morning, police officer Faqir Mohammad Jawzjani said.
The explosion killed the district chief, Manzurullha, and his bodyguard, and wounded three other officials with them, Jawzjani said. Like most Afghans, Manzurullha used only one name.
Also Thursday, two roadside bombings minutes apart killed an Afghan policeman and wounded four others in the city of Kandahar, said police officer Shamsullha, who also uses one name.
The first explosion struck a police car as it drove down a street, killing one officer and wounding two.
Then, as other policemen who were nearby rushed to the site of the blast, a second explosion went off, wounding two more policemen, said Shamsullha.
A statement released by NATO did not provide other details on the helicopter crash in Kandahar province. Coalition policy is for home countries to identify their military dead.
--more--"
You don't have to be Nostradamus to see this future:
"Scathing inspector’s report skewers Phoenix VA hospital; Wait-time data found to be false, hindering care" by Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Michael D. Shear | New York Times May 29, 2014
NEW YORK — In the first confirmation that Department of Veterans Affairs administrators manipulated medical waiting lists at one and possibly more hospitals, the department’s inspector general reported Wednesday that 1,700 patients at the veterans medical center in Phoenix were not placed on the official waiting list for doctors’ appointments and may never have received care.
The scathing report by Richard J. Griffin, the acting inspector general, validates allegations raised by whistle-blowers and others that Veterans Affairs officials in Phoenix employed artifices to cloak long waiting times for veterans seeking medical care.
Why would they do $omething like that?
Griffin said the average waiting time in Phoenix for initial primary care appointments, 115 days, was nearly five times as long as what the hospital’s administrators had reported.
He suggested the falsified data may have led to more favorable performance reviews for personnel and indicated that some instances of potentially manipulated data had been given to the Justice Department.
That LOOKS CRIMINAL TO ME!
Griffin said that similar kinds of manipulation to hide long and possibly growing waiting times were “systemic throughout” the VA health care system, with its 150 medical centers serving 8 million veterans a year. The inspector general’s office is reviewing practices at 42 VA medical facilities.
Griffin’s report brought immediate political consequences. For the first time since the controversy erupted last month, several Senate Democrats, including Mark Udall of Colorado and John Walsh of Montana, demanded that the secretary of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, step down, joining Republican lawmakers who have been making that demand for weeks.
Not to excuse Shinseki, but this was going on long before he got there. Why it is being brought to the surface by the propaganda pre$$ now is suspicious.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a former naval aviator who was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War and is now an influential voice on veterans issues, also called Wednesday for Shinseki to resign. Along with several other leading Republican lawmakers who had been withholding judgment, McCain asked the FBI to investigate the Phoenix hospital. Griffin previously said that he was working with the Justice Department to examine whether criminal violations had occurred there.
Shinseki, in a statement, called the findings “reprehensible to me” and ordered the department to “immediately triage each of the 1,700 veterans” and give them timely care. The department suspended two senior officials at the Phoenix medical center shortly after the allegations of falsified waiting lists became public this month.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said President Obama found the report “extremely troubling,” but he did not indicate whether Shinseki had lost the confidence of the White House.
Related: Obama Gets an Earnest Press Secretary
Griffin’s interim report — the final version is expected by August — did not address the most explosive allegations made about the Phoenix facility: that as many as 40 veterans who were never put on the official list for doctors’ appointments might have died while awaiting care. He said determinations could be made only after examining autopsy reports and other documents that were still being reviewed. He had said that after reviewing 17 of those cases, he had found no indication that any of those deaths were tied to delays.
But the rest of his report was sweeping in its indictment of the Phoenix hospital and contained sharp criticism of much of the rest of the veterans health care bureaucracy.
“While our work is not complete, we have substantiated that significant delays in access to care negatively impacted the quality of care at this medical facility,” Griffin said.
--more--"
"VA scandal forces Congress to study systemic change" by Jonathan Weisman | New York Times May 30, 2014
WASHINGTON — With calls rising for the resignation of the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, the House and Senate are confronting the broadening health scandal at the department in ways that will challenge both parties to rethink the future of the medical system for veterans.
But they won't rethink Obummercare, and the VA system is what single-payer would look like in this country if they had given us that instead of crappy corporate health care.
House legislation would nudge the department toward privatization by allowing any veteran who has had to wait for care for 30 days to seek it through private medical providers, at the department’s expense. The Senate is preparing legislation that would fund as many as 27 new health care facilities within the VA system to address the backlog of care at a cost of billions of dollars.
It will still take years to have an impact. These guys need help now!
And why did it take this for you a$$holes down there to move when you have known about this for decades?
With shockingly long wait times at some facilities eliciting bipartisan condemnation, the next steps by Congress will hold significant ramifications for veterans’ health care — and government-run health care broadly.
******
The scandal was amplified Wednesday with the release of a report by the department’s inspector general that found wide-ranging and “systemic” abuses of its lists to mask the problems of long wait times for care. The investigation’s preliminary report found that 1,700 veterans at the agency’s medical facility in Phoenix were left off the official waiting list and that wait times were systematically understated.
Six Democratic senators, all campaigning for election this year, have called for Shinseki’s resignation: Mark Udall of Colorado, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, John Walsh of Montana, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Al Franken of Minnesota, and Mark Warner of Virginia. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, added his voice to the growing chorus. He and Walsh are the Senate’s only combat veterans.
“The systemic problems at the US Department of Veterans Affairs are so entrenched that they require new leadership to be fixed,” Udall said. “Secretary Shinseki must step down.”
Wait a day.
In the House, Representative Jeff Miller, Republican of Florida and chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, and Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also said Shinseki should step down. For weeks, Miller had said a change at the top would only shift attention from the changes needed to address the underlying problems.
The “report makes it painfully clear that the VA does not always have our veterans’ backs,” said Paul Rieckhoff, chief executive and founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
How to fix the problem, however, leaves both parties with a fundamental question: Does Congress expand a government health program to deal with a net increase 1.5 million new veterans, their ranks swollen by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or does it move toward a privatized health system?
What?
They can't scrap the ca$h grab known as Obummercare but they can.... !!!!!!!!
Most veterans organizations are leery of more vouchers for private care, maintaining that the Department of Veterans Affairs has expertise unmatched outside the system in areas such as traumatic brain injury, amputee care, and other combat-related ailments.
I don't know; I might want to go somewhere else were I a vet.
Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are overwhelming facilities in the Southwest and South. And, he noted, the nation’s entire health care system is facing acute shortages of primary care physicians, so vouchers may not relieve the backlog....
And we spend more on health than any other nation on earth.
So what pharmaceuticals and insurers got all the money, huh?
--more--"
"Shinseki resigns amid vets' health care problems" by Julie Pace, May 30 2014
WASHINGTON (AP) — Beset by growing evidence of patient delays and cover-ups, embattled Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned from President Barack Obama's Cabinet Friday, taking the blame for what he decried as a "lack of integrity" in the sprawling health care system for the nation's military veterans.
Obama, under mounting pressure to act from fellow Democrats who are worried about political fallout in the fall elections, praised the retired four-star general and said he accepted his resignation with "considerable regret." But the president, too, focused on increasingly troubling allegations of treatment delays and preventable deaths at veterans hospitals around the country.
That is what this is all about for them! POLITICS! I'm disgusted, and I opposed the wars!
That is what this is all about for them! POLITICS! I'm disgusted, and I opposed the wars!
Emerging from an Oval Office meeting with Shinseki, a stone-faced Obama said the secretary himself acknowledged he had become a distraction as the administration moves to address the VA's troubles, and the president agreed with him.
"We don't have time for distractions," Obama said. "We need to fix the problem."
Pfft!
The problem should have been fixed six years ago like you promised!
The problem should have been fixed six years ago like you promised!
One of Shinseki's last acts as secretary was to hand the president an internal accounting that underscored just how big the problems have become. It showed that in some cases, VA schedulers have been pressured to fake information for reports to make waiting times for medical appointments look more favorable.
"It is totally unacceptable," Obama said. "Our vets deserve the best. They've earned it."
His words sound so hollow these days. One endless campaigner spewing shit.
His words sound so hollow these days. One endless campaigner spewing shit.
The president appointed Sloan Gibson, the No. 2 at the Veterans Affairs Department, as temporary secretary as the search for a permanent successor began. Obama also asked Rob Nabors, a top White House aide who has been dispatched to the VA to oversee a broad review, to stay for the time being.
Gibson, who has been Shinseki's deputy for about three months, was formerly president and chief executive officer of the USO, the nonprofit organization that provides programs and services to U.S. troops and their families. Gibson is the son of an Army Air Corpsman who served in World War II and grandson of a World War I Army infantryman.
Republicans in Congress said the shake-up wasn't enough to solve problems at an agency that has been struggling to keep up with a huge demand for its services — some 9 million enrolled now compared to 8 million in 2008. The influx comes from returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, aging Vietnam War vets who now have more health problems, a move by Congress to expand the number of those eligible for care and the migration of veterans to the VA during the last recession after they lost their jobs or switched to the VA when their private insurance became more expensive.
"One personnel change cannot be used as an excuse to paper over a systemic problem," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who had held off in calling for Shinseki's resignation. "Our veterans deserve better. We'll hold the president accountable until he makes things right."
And what about YOU and your oversight responsibilities? That's what Congress is supposed to be doing, not living lavish lifestyles at taxpayer expense while posturing politically.
The massive bureaucracy at the VA has come under intense scrutiny over the past month, following allegations that 40 patients died while awaiting care at a Phoenix hospital where employees kept a secret waiting list to cover up delays. On Wednesday, the VA inspector general reported that 1,700 veterans seeking treatment at the Phoenix facility were at risk of being "forgotten or lost."
After that scathing report, a cascade of Democrats on the ballot in the fall midterm elections joined dozens of Republicans in calling for Shinseki to step down.
Administration officials said the combined pressure of the VA investigator's troubling findings and the extreme focus on Shinseki's status led Obama to conclude that the secretary would probably need to resign. But they said the president wanted to first allow Shinseki an opportunity to submit his own report to the White House, set in motion a series of firings in the agency, and speak to veterans at a long-planned appearance Friday morning.
In his speech to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, Shinseki said, "I extend an apology to the people whom I care most deeply about — that's the veterans of this great country — to their families and loved ones, who I have been honored to serve for over five years now. It's the calling of a lifetime."
The term "homeless veterans" is scandalous.
The term "homeless veterans" is scandalous.
The 71-year-old Shinseki said he had been "too trusting of some" in the VA system. He then headed to the White House to offer his resignation to the president during a 30-minute meeting.
Obama appeared to take no comfort in ousting Shinseki, a disabled Vietnam veteran and former Army chief of staff who has overseen the VA since the start of the Obama presidency. He called him "a good person who's done exemplary work on our behalf."
Shinseki is among the few high-level officials pushed out a job by Obama, who has shown a preference for sticking by advisers during a crisis. He allowed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to stay on the job six months while she faced similar management and competence questions during the disastrous rollout of the enrollment website for Obama's signature health law.
See: Obummercare Emergency!
See: Obummercare Emergency!
Problems at the VA date back well before Shinseki took the helm. The VA inspector general has issued 18 reports since 2005 that identified deficiencies in scheduling at both the national and local levels.
No one cared all that time, and that was where my print article ended..
Congressional lawmakers are working on legislation that would seek to address those problems. Including a bill passed by the Republican-led House that would give the VA greater ability to fire up to 450 senior executives. The Democratic-controlled Senate is likely to debate a different version championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
In his final remarks as secretary, Shinseki asked Congress to support Sanders' legislation. He also announced that the government would not give any VA performance bonuses this year and would use all authorities it has against those "who instigated or tolerated" the falsification of wait-time records.
That is the FIRST MENTION of THEM, and the Globe cut it!
That is the FIRST MENTION of THEM, and the Globe cut it!
--more--"
Related: Bowing to rising pressure, VA chief steps down
That was the New York Times version that the Globe website substituted in place of the above article, and since "fixing the problem at the department now becomes an urgent political matter for the president," and not a "far more serious concern for the millions of veterans whose access to timely health care has been steadily eroding" soured me on the piece.
That was the New York Times version that the Globe website substituted in place of the above article, and since "fixing the problem at the department now becomes an urgent political matter for the president," and not a "far more serious concern for the millions of veterans whose access to timely health care has been steadily eroding" soured me on the piece.
"Senate to take up new VA bill to address scandal" by Dina Cappiello | Associated Press June 02, 2014
WASHINGTON — Details of a refashioned bill to address the problems plaguing the federally run veterans’ health care system were released Sunday by its sponsor, the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, posted a summary of his bill Sunday and said it would be introduced this week. The bill includes several new provisions aimed at fixing the long delays for veterans’ care.
The long-simmering issue erupted into a scandal in April and led to last week’s resignation of Eric Shinseki, VA secretary, after a federal investigation into the troubled Phoenix VA Health Care System found that about 1,700 veterans in need of care were ‘‘at risk of being lost or forgotten’’ after being kept off an official waiting list.
The investigation also found broad and deep-seated problems throughout the sprawling health care system, which provides medical care to about 6.5 million veterans annually.
Sanders said in a statement issued Sunday that while the people who have lied or manipulated data must be punished, ‘‘we also need to get to the root causes of the problems that have been exposed.’’
When does the Bush Cabinet go on trial?
*************
An earlier version of Sanders’s bill did not have enough support to pass in February....
!!!!!
--more--"
McCain was on CBS’s Face the Nation, huh?
NEXT DAY UPDATE: Reid seeks quick Senate vote on Veterans Affairs health bill
Related:
Obama Abandoned Veterans
Shinseki Takes Point
Also see:
Veterans voicing frustration over crisis at VA hospitals
I'm frustrated at the lack of mention regarding the goals of the scheme in which they put so much time and energy: promotions and pay bonu$es!
Car drives through a wall into VA hospital in West Roxbury
They just put it up:
"Ill. shelving $100m gift to Obama library" by John O’Connor | Associated Press June 01, 2014
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A plan to offer $100 million in tax dollars to lure Barack Obama’s presidential library to Illinois is on the shelf, as lawmakers wrapped up the spring session without advancing the idea.
See: Obama Overshadows All
Democrats in the president’s home state pushed the plan to compete with rival bids from Hawaii and New York. But it faced opposition from Republicans wary of an expensive and precedent-setting gift — with no immediately identified funding source — for a mostly private endeavor when the state faces financial difficulties.
Not all Democrats were on board either. Both the Democratic-controlled House and Senate adjourned without calling for any final votes on the measure.
‘‘It wasn’t clear that a state monetary incentive was necessary for a successful [library] proposal,’’ said Rikeesha Phelon, a spokeswoman for Senate president John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat.
Sponsors of the measure vowed to continue their advocacy, but the initiative now must wait, despite a June 16 deadline for host proposals to Obama’s library commission.
The state’s House speaker, Michael Madigan, who doubles as state Democratic Party chief, had hoped the library plan would be in a multibillion-dollar replacement for a five-year statewide construction plan that is expiring.
But that larger bricks-and-mortar program also got no traction as lawmakers patched together a 2015 state budget without extending a temporary income tax increase, as Democrats had sought.
Obama was a community organizer in Chicago before he was elected to the Illinois and US Senates. He grew up in Hawaii and attended college in New York, spurring those states to compete for Obama’s legacy.
See: Obama's Legacy
The only thing that will change it is initiating nuclear war, and that would make things worse.
‘‘In order to show him we’re serious about wanting him in Illinois, we have to do the right thing,’’ said Illinois state Representative Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat. ‘‘We must put forth some good-faith effort.’’
Even without approval of a capital plan, Davis wanted a vote before the House adjourned to send a supportive message ahead of the commission’s application deadline. She said she will continue pushing the idea this fall when lawmakers return to Springfield.
Republicans say they welcome the library and the tourists it would attract. But they pointed out that no library dedicated to a modern president received state or federal tax dollars — although Democrats point out public aid is often offered, such as donated land.
--more--"
Related:
Making Some Hard Choices
Touring the Bush Library
LBJ Overshadows MLK
I wonder when H.W will adopt Obama.
Also see:
Illinois clerks prepare for gay marriage rollout
Gay marriage law takes effect in Illinois
Then they headed to the bath houses.
