Friday, February 10, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, implications of
Iraq are noted in a series by the New York Times, Nouri faces rumors of
involvement with the US CIA, veterans suicides get some attention, banks profit
off veterans, and more.
"Asking what the United States should do in Iraq today is an awful
question," observes Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack. He took part in
the New York Times' "Room for Debate" feature yesterday. We'll note
four of the participants, two men, two women. It's an interesting discussion
and their views are highly similar because it's a range of center to right.
There are no leftists involved in the "room for debate." We should probably
underline that. In what the New York Times bill as their "room for
debate," room for actual debate does not include anyone from the left.
One of the most prominent right-wing voices on Iraq in the last two months
has been the Hoover Institution's Kori Schake. In her piece, she argues the White House made
various mistakes and Iraq is now splintering, "This is not what Iraqis wanted,
not what they voted for. The political culture of Iraq waas trending toward
trust beyond sectarian lines, political leaders seeing electoral benefit in
reaching across religious communities and emphasizing the achievements of
governing." Also from the right is Cato Institute's Christopher Preble who offers, "A small group of
'true believers' who were instrumental in starting the war want to double down
on that losing wager. They assert that a large U.S. presence might forestall a
possible civil war, and counteract Iran's rising influence. In reality, they
simply don't know if a U.S. presence would have this effect. But, as before,
they are willing to risk the lives of U.S. troops, and the fortunes of U.S.
taxpayers, to cover their high-stakes gamble." The centerist (some would argue
right-leaning) Pollack feels that there are methods the US still
can utilize, "We still have some capacity to name and shame, although that
requires Iraqi leaders who are not shameless. We still have some things -- aid,
weapons, diplomatic clout -- that the Iraqis want, although that will depend on
our own willingness to place long-term interests ahead of political expediency
and so provide them. And we still have some ability to shape the region in
which Iraq lives, although that requires an American leadership willing to take
on the challenges of the Middle East and not flee to East Asia or some other
easier part of the globe."
The non-partisan Institute for the Study of War's Marisa Cochrane Sullivan argues, "United States
policy today is focused on maintaining the status quo in Iraq, offering
unqualified support for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the name of
stability. But the status quo is inherently unstable. Maliki, emboldened by
this support, feels few contraints on his actions and has little incentive to
compromise." He has steadily consolidated control over Iraq's security and
intelligence institutions, and has effectively isolated and fragmented his
political rivals. Even in the current political crisis, Maliki has used
questionable and even unconstitutional tactics to remove rivals without reducing
American support. At the same time, the Maliki government has committed
widespread human rights abuses in its crackdown on political dissent in Iraq.
While the United States may feel Maliki offers the best chance for stability,
his consolidation of power may make Iraq more unstable as Iraq's rival factions
seek other means to check him -- either through politics or ultimately through
force." And we'll note Schake's simillar observations, "First, we must stop
turning a blind eye to Prime Minister Maliki's creeping authoritarianism.
Maliki returned from his White House meeting declaring the end of the war and
issued an arrest warrant for his vice president. The White House was silent, as
it has been on Maliki's earlier unconstitutional arrogation of power and
political machinations, such as arresting hundreds of Sunnis and striking
candidates from electoral lists. While it is probably too much to expect the
Obama administration to vigorously contest what is occuring in Iraq's internal
politics, we ought at least to bear
witness." |
It's a serious discussion which would have benefitted from some left voices
and from some antiwar voices (left, right or center). In fairness to the paper,
there aren't a lot of honest discussions about the Iraq War on the left these
days. Apparently spines were removed by many to assist with easier ass
kissing. Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox)
notes the sad case of cat got your tongue plaguing a large number on the
left:
I, and many others, were in favor of a
large demo in DC that year [2008], as we always did, but one of the lead
antiwar(Bush) organizations actually told us, since Democrats were in the
majority in the House and they were continuing to fund Bush's wars and not
impeach him, that a demo in DC would, "embarrass the Democrats."
Now that we have had two years of a
complete Democratic tyranny in DC and almost four years of a Democratic regime
in the White House, the antiwar movement has continued its tailspin because it
was mostly populated by "liberal" Democrats, or other Democratic functionaries
like the Communist Party, USA.
A recent poll commissioned by the
Washington Post shows, that by a vast majority "Liberal" Democrats favor
keeping Guantanamo Prison (53%) camp and torture facility open and the drone
bombing campaigns (77%) that their president has increased by at least 300
percent over the Bush years. Unbelievably, "liberal" Democrats also are in favor
of the Presidential Assassination Program where Obama can have any American
executed by his order, only. Trials? Like John Yoo's Constitution, these
anachronisms will soon be considered "quaint."
In Iraq, the political crisis continues. Shihab Hamid (Dar Addustour) offers that national
reconciliation is important to the political and social future of Iraq as well
as to the security and stability of the country and that all Iraqis should be
able to participate because, otherwise, the price paid with millions dead was
for nothing. Al
Mada notes that Iraqiya has confirmed to them that there are
various plans being put forward for the national conference and that, at
Monday's meeting, the National alliance offered a working paper, as did Iraqiya
and the Kurdistan Alliance. The plan is for the three proposals to be discussed
at the next meeting which is currently scheduled for Sunday. Yes, another
meeting to make preparations. President Jalal Talabani and Speaker Osama
al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference since December. It's
February. Is it going to take eight months of preparation? Or, more likely, in a
month or two is Nouri just going to say that since they've managed this long
without one, they really don't need it?
When Nouri returned to Iraq, his
war against Iraqiya and Sunnis became more obvious and he began demanding that
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his position and that Vice
President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on 'terrorism' charges. Al
Mada notes that Saleh al-Mutlaq is stating that the problems
in Iraq remain serious and that he will not return to Cabinet meetings until
there is a guarantee that the political proces will be fixed and that the
groundwork for a real partnership is in place. He maintains this needs to take
place before the Arab Summit which is scheduled to be held in Baghdad currently.
Al
Sabaah notes that the meeting is scheduled for March 29th and
is part of a series of planned visits by foreigners to Iraq -- a list that's
said to include UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visiting. Aswat al-Iraq notes al-Mutlaq is going
on a visit, "An al-Iraqiya Bloc MP described the visit of deputy premier Saleh
al-Mutlaq's visit to Turkey as personal, not governmental, pointing out that
Mutlaq 'should solve his problems internally without any external
intervention'." But while they acknowledge al-Mutlaq's visit, they say another
is not taking place, " Al-Iraqiya Bloc's spokesman denied the news of
vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi travelling to Turkey, stressing he is present in
Sulaimaniya province, Kurdistan."
The much-feared Central Intelligence Agency
is planning to maintain a large and secretive presence inside both Iraq and
Afghanistan long after American troops leave those nations, The Washington Post
reported Wednesday.
In Iraq, where most US troops have already left, the
massive CIA presence in Baghdad has been re-purposed. Once focused chiefly on
tackling Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents, the American spies are now
"monitoring developments in the increasingly antagonistic government."
In
many ways thing have come full circle for the CIA, which had a presence on the
ground spying on the Saddam Hussein regime before the 2003 US invasion. Now,
having spent the last eight years helping the military prop up the Nurul Maliki
government, the agency again finds itself there spying.
It's amazing that foreign outlets can reference the important article but
in the US we have so much silence over what Miller reported. Prensa Latina notes, "The CIA's
stations in Kabul and Baghdad will probably remain the agency´s largest overseas
outposts for years. According to The Washington Post, this will happen even if
they shrink from record staffing levels set at the height of American efforts in
those nations to neutralize insurgency attacks."
Still on the topic of the CIA, Nouri is facing rumors that he's cooperating
with the CIA or assisting them. Al Mada
notes State of Law MP Adnan al-Sarraj has issued a statement
denying any involvement Nouri has with the CIA -- presumably current involvement
is being denied since Nouri and the CIA had a pre-existing relationship prior to
2003 -- and stating that when Nouri met with US President Barack Obama in
December, Nouri made clear that the CIA wasn't welcome in autonomous Iraq. Al Mada notes not only Miller's report for
the Washington Post but also Iraqi
intelligence sources who have that Iraq's leadership and the CIA have an
extensive relationship.
On the issue of violence, Aswat al-Iraq notes, "More than 12
casualties were caused due to clashes yesterday between the Turkish PKK party
and the Turkish army in different areas along the Iraqi-Turkish border lines,
border security forces reported today." And they note a Falluja sticky bombing claimed the
life of 1 Sahwa (Sons Of Iraq, "Awakening").
"What my clients want to know is why -- when they're living at home or
under supervised care -- their veteran suddenly has to have a VA fiduciary at
all?" attorney Douglas J. Rosinski asked Congress yesterday. "My veterans have
had decades of family members giving them care and handling their benefits
without VA interruption. Suddenly, VA appoints a perfect stranger -- perfectly
unknown to the veteran -- who has never contacted a veteran, who will not
contact a veteran and is paid money from that veterans account to withhold the
money from the veteran, to place it in bank accounts that they will not disclose
to the veteran and they will not even disclose under FOIA [Freedom Of
Information Act]. They will redact the veterans own information about his own
money from the files they give out. My clients want to know why, that if there
is a need, for a VA-appointed fiduciary, it has to be this stranger. They want
to know why this veteran is told to take all of the veterans finances, all of
his bank accounts and ask questions about his CDs [Certificate of Deposit] and
whether he owns a boat and what his wife's salary is and where is that salary
put and then go into the banks and take all of it and not tell them where it
is. They want to know why VA not only will not correct that when I've had
personal discussions with members sitting -- or people sitting -- in this
hearing today and then they will not fix that problem? They want to know why VA
defends those practices at every turn, in every court, in every discussion?
This is not about numbers and procedures and policies. My clients don't care
about policies and procedures. They want to know why they have $100,000 in the
bank and they cannot afford the medicine that the VA doctors prescribed last
month? They want to know why the power company's in the front yard when they
have $50,000 in the bank? And it takes an emergency motion to the Veterans
Court before these people will call the power company and tell them they'll pay
$178."
Rosinkski was appearing before the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations yesterday as they held a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system
-- where someone's appointed by the veteran or by the VA to
manage/oversee/control the veterans benefits. Rosinski appeared on the second
panel and noted, "That's what my clients would like to hear today. And I did
not hear any of that from the prior panel."
The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House
floor). The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana
Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law
Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Rosinski with
the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick
Weidman. We covered the first panel in yesterday's snapshot. US House Rep Bill Johnson
is the Chair of the Subcommittee. We'll note this exchange.
Chair Bill Johnson: Ms. Eagle, if VA is paying a fiduciary a
percentage of a veterans' compensation, only to allow VA to have the final say ,
then why pay a fiduciary in the first place?
Katrina Eagle: I have many veterans and clients who ask that same
question. I don't understand it myself. I find it ironic that I have several
cases where the veteran is paid also [clears throat], excuse me, his Social
Security benefits and he has no fiduciary managing his Social Security benefits
but the VA finds that he must be appointed a fidcuiary for his VA benefits which
also then get sucked into including his Social Security benefits. Moreover, as
Mr. Weidman was saying, with respect to veterans who try to get out of the
program, I've seen many instances of retribution, so to speak, in that when the
veteran applies to get out of the fiduciary program, he is then found perfectly
fine with his medical condition, the underlying medical condtion be it physical
or often a psychiatric condition, and therefore he [his benefits] is reduced.
And that is encouraging the veteran to say nothing, go along and not question or
cause problems.
Chair Bill Johnson: I want to read this paragraph for everyone's
attention out of that form we're discussing. It says, "Approval for use of VA
funds" -- and this is the 21-4703 that we're discussing -- "VA must approve any
use of a veterans VA funds. You" -- and I'm presuming that's the fiduciary --
"agree to use these funds only as specifically authorized by VA. You agree to
request VA approval for all spending of these funds unless VA has previously
authorized the expenditures. Any questions regarding authorized expenditures
should be addressed to the fiduciary activity at the address and phone number on
the front side of this form." Ms. Eagle, in your opinion, should VA remove this
paragraph in question of form 21-4703?
Katrina Eagle: Yes.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, thank you. Ms. Estes, you mentioned that
you submitted the anual report to VA but have heard nothing since. When is your
last date to be informed of the status of this issue? You said today,
correct?
Estes: They told me I had 30 days so I'm assuming -- I took 30 days
from the postmark, that would be today.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. What results good or bad have you
experienced in the fiduciary program. Now that's -- that's a big question but .
. .
Pam Estes: When there is contact, it's fine. They come out and I
talk to them and we go over the expenditures and stuff. I don't have a problem
there. It's like a black hole. I don't get any return calls when I leave a
message. I was afraid to send the accounting because they require originals of
everything -- original bank statement and stuff like -- and you're not handing
it, you're mailing it so I suspected something like that might happen so we sent
it certified and everything. And I followed up with a phone call saying I did
this. I know I'm supposed to have an audit but nobody came out so I'm
submitting it. And so then we got the letter that said I hadn't submitted it at
all.
Chair Bill Johnson: So basically, it's miscommunication, lack of
communication?
Pam Estes: They were being -- No communication.
Chair Bill Johnson: No communication.
Pam Estes: It's no communication.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Ms. Eagle, on the first panel, we
discussed VA waivers for fiduciaries. And if I recall the testimony, they were
not aware of waivers being granted for certification or fiduciary
qualifications. Do you have any experience with VA fiduciary requirements being
waived?
Katrina Eagle: I do. And what I find and what Mr. McLenachen was
talking about is a fiduciary for the first time will be reviewed, background
checks perhaps performed. What I see happen in all of the cases I have reviewed
in assisting the veteran is that if that fiduciary has been at all ever in the
VA system as a fiduciary previously, the background check is waived, criminal
background checks are waived, etc., etc. So once he's in, it's good to go.
Chair Bill Johnson: Mr. Rosinski, is the issue of a person with a
criminal background being allowed to serve as a VA fiduciary an isolated
incident in your view?
Doug Rosinski: Mr. Chairman, there's no way to tell. As Ms. Eagle
just said, they waive all the background checks I've ever seen. And my
experience is all they ask is they're asking, 'Check a box, have you ever been
convicted and served more than one year for a felony, yes or no?' So I'll leave
it to you whether a convicted felon is going to answer that yes or no. That is,
as far as I know, the background check. And that is what is waived on top of
it.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Mr. Rosinski, in your experience and
clients you've represented, what is your background of some of the VA
fidcuiaries? Have you -- have you seen incidents where fiduciaries have been
removed?
Doug Rosinski: The only fiduciary that I know that was removed was
the daughter who was taking care of her 81-year-old father and was a registered
nurse and had been taking care of her father full time for two decades, had
retired from being a nurse to do that. She took her father to an Alzheimers
clinic because he has advancing Alzheimers and VA turned around and fired her as
fiduciary and registered a complaint for misuse of those funds because they were
not pre-authorized. I've also -- that's my example of firing. The issue of
qualifications, I had the privilege of deposing two actual fiduciaries in the
state of Texas. One was a cabinet salesman who in 2009 got his first fiduciary
appointment. In 2011, November 2011, when I deposed him, [he] had 53. He had
never heard of a fiduciary until someone suggested that this would be a good job
to have since he had had a heart attack. The other fiduciary there is the
full-time, single working mother who said her father had been a VA fiduciary and
that's how she found out about the program.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Ms. Eagle, given the 3 to 5% paid to a
fiduciary for administering a veterans account, what purpose would a fiduciary
have for hoarding a veteran's money?
Katrina Eagle: I think that the issue of hoarding has nothing to do
with how much they're being authorized from the veteran's money on a monthly
basis. The reason they would be hoarding -- and there's two kinds of
fiduciaries that I've dealt with. The hoarding is encouraged by the VA program
leadership because they are to save as much money as possible in case of
certain emergencies. Keep in mind that these are monthly recurring benefits. So
needing to save $100,000 when the veterans going to get paid $3,000 every month
until and unless he passes, there's no need to save that much money. Second of
all, lots of these fiduciaries are banks. It is in their best interest to keep
as much money in their accounts as possible.
Staying with veterans issues, I've noted my opinion on the national parade
issue earlier this week (see this snapshot) -- briefly, veterans of the current
wars will get the nation's attention for only a short time and there would
appear to be more serious issues to address while the nation is paying
attention. (My comments are on a national parade and that's a Congressional
issue and we covered in January how Congress de-funded the planned parade some
time ago. I've noted that various people -- including a governor -- can stage a
local, county or state wide parade.) We're going to note a few opinons on the
issue. Jerry Maza (Salem-News.com)
offers:
It isn't like starting a war in Iraq on lies,
that Saddam Hussein had WMD when no one, not even the UN's inspector (referee)
for nuclear weapons, Hans Blix, could find nary a missile, poison gas, Niger
yellowcake uranium, or any secret locales for the stash. There were no goal
posts in Iraq. No fighting from your 20-yard line to the 50 and marching down it
to a touchdown, a kick for the goal, and your seven points up. The stated
purpose of the shock and awe of the linemen was bringing democracy to Iraq. You
might as well bring sea bass to a Thanksgiving dinner.
In fact, the last thing on anybody's mind was
democracy, given the unilateral and illegal attack on Iraq. Now, who's going to
march over that shameful premise? Sorry to say, our brave players were sent on a
fool's mission once again. The field had no markers, no big rectangle broken
into ten yards ten times. The war was one you had to find, break down doors,
terrorize families, looking for the man with the ball, the I.E.D. or hidden
weapon, and knock him to the ground. In frustration for often not finding those
things, soldiers took it out on innocent viewers of the ongoing chaos. Also,
soldiers had to watch their buddies go nuts, over the top, at the atrocities
they often had to commit (albeit much like WWII), but mostly back then there
were victories and a people were spared from total holocaust. What they learned
from it seems questionable sometimes.
Larry Mendte (Philly Post) calls for a
parade for Philadelphia's veterans (and for those in surrounding areas -- he's
in fact calling for every big city to stage a parade):
I have put together an online
petition asking Mayor Michael Nutter for a parade in
Philadelphia to honor the more than 100,000 men and women from our area who
served in Iraq. Please sign it and then pass it on through emails, Twitter and
Facebook. Philadelphia should lead the country on this. The positive national
media attention will be well worth the cost. More importantly, it is the right
thing to do.
While all this arguing is going on, veterans are struggling. In
this country, an average of 18 veterans commit suicide every
day. The jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans is as high as 15 percent. They are trying to find work despite having
been labeled ticking time bombs, unable to assimilate back into society, plagued
with post-traumatic stress.
Later this month, on an evening like any other in America, nearly
70,000 veterans will spend the night
on the street while President Obama and the first
lady host a special White House
dinner to honor 200 or so hand-picked Iraq veterans
from a war that produced more than 30,000 wounded in action. Across the country,
on any given night, nearly 5,000 dinner tables have an empty place where a loved
one who never came home from the war used to sit.
On the issue of suicides, Michael Moran (Global Post) points out,
"Statistics on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, obtained in 2011 through a Freedom
of Information Act request by a San Francisco newspaper, found that more than
2,200 soldiers died within two years of leaving the service, and about half had
been undergoing treatment for post-traumatic stress or other combat-induced
mental disorders at the time."
|
No comments:
Post a Comment