|
Thursday,
December 13, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, State of Law walks out
of Parliament, State of Law suspends a member, among those threatened,
tortured and/or intimidated in Iraqi prisons is an 11-year-old-girl a
Parliamentary Committee discovers, an Iraqi journalist has gone missing,
Jalal Talabani announces a deal, US Senator Patty Murray has a victory
in the Senate, the US intelligence community sees 'entitlements' as a
threat to America's future, Victoria Nuland's thirst for Iraqi oil
mirrors the US goverment's, and more.
Tuesday
at that day's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland
pretended to care about Syria when discussing Iraq but it's really about
oil for the neocon Kagan family (Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan) and that's why she works as the face of the State Dept today.
QUESTION:
Yes. Turkey is negotiating, or already finished an oil deal with the
Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. Are you encouraging Turkey not to
go along with this, since it will be a provocation to the central
government in Baghdad?
MS.
NULAND: Well, first of all, let me say as a general matter, once again,
Samir, that the United States supports a constitutional solution to the
dispute over the management of Iraq's hydrocarbon resources. This is
our longstanding position. We are continuing to urge the Iraqi
Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government to reach an agreement
over legislation so that they can enhance investment so that everybody
knows what the fair legal basis is for this.
We
don't support oil exports from any part of Iraq without the appropriate
approval of the Iraqi Government, and we're calling on the Government
of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to continue to try to work
through their differences. We also call on neighboring states to
similarly avoid any action or comment that can contribute in any way to
increasing tensions.
Officially, the US State Dept is a 'good faith' organization. They claim their mission statement is:
"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the
international community by helping to build and sustain a more
democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed
states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread
poverty, and act responsibly within the international system." You see
oil in there? Me neither.
Victoria Nuland has
never spoken out in defense of Iraqi women -- not when the
'independent' electoral commission had new commissioners and refused to
make 1/3 women despite that being the mandate, not during the current
prison torture scandal where women have been, at the very least,
threatened with rape -- including an 11-year-old girl according to a
Committee in Iraq's Parliament. Victoria Nuland had no concerns about
Iraqi women.
When bombs go off and their mass
deaths and many injured? She doesn't note it. She gives a press
conference hours later and doesn't even mention it. I'm no fan of Condi
Rice, but a spokesperson that pulled that under Condi would have been
sent packing. Under Condi, every mass attack in Iraq was condemned that
day. But Victoria Nuland, by her focus and what she chooses to stress
and or ignore, clearly doesn't care about the safety of the Iraqi
people.
In 2009, when Iraq's LGBTs were being
terrorized by Nouri's forces and by militias in Iraq, the State Dept
went out of their way to say nothing. When the BBC was able to get
someone on the record (for a mealy-mouthed statement), it wasn't
Nuland. And this year, when Nouri's Ministry of the Interior (that he
never nominated anyone to be minister of so he is in charge of it) went
to schools to spread fear and rage at Iraqi youths who were Emo or LGBT
(or just appeared to be either or both), Victoria Nuland wasn't
interested.
Over and over, when the Iraqi
people are in trouble, the US State Dept plays dumb. And no one plays
dumb better than Victoria Nuland who has has so many years to perfect
her craft of stupidity.
She had nothing to say about human rights crises in Iraq. But she finds the time to speak on oil?
That
might be puzzling if you didn't grasp how the US government defines
oil. In 2001, Dick Cheney, then President of Vice in the United States,
serving under Bully Boy Bush, met with oil companies in what was called
the "Cheney Energy Task Force." This was about developing an energy
policy, supposedly. What it was really about was looking at the world's
oil map and figuring out where to start a war and how to control the
oil.
If Dick Cheney had has his way, we wouldn't know that. But Judicial Watch sued for the records he refused to release. Click here for the maps and charts Cheney's 'energy task force' drew up on Iraq in March 2001.
And try to pretend that the illegal war that would start two years
later wasn't connected. Cheney's US 'energy task force' needed to label
Iraq's "supergiant oilfield" (don't you picture Dick jizzing in his
shorts over that one) as well as "other oilfield"s and "earmarked for
production sharing" and all these other little tags, little price tags,
in fact, that's what they were. It was a tag sale on the belongings of
the Iraqi people.
And
now she's a front person for the US State Dept. The reason being, the
theft of Iraqi oil isn't really dismaying to Democrats in power. Those
who objected in real time (or, more often, after the war was a clear
loser) did so out of partisanship. Even now, no one's standing on the
floor of Congress expressing outrage over this war for oil. If you're
not grasping how disgusting the current administration is, remind
yourself that Dick Cheney's deputy national security advisor -- Dick
Cheney's -- is now the spokesperson for the State Dept.
Let's go back over what Little Vicky The Small Blunder said:
Well,
first of all, let me say as a general matter, once again, Samir, that
the United States supports a constitutional solution to the dispute over
the management of Iraq's hydrocarbon resources. This is our
longstanding position. We are continuing to urge the Iraqi Government
and the Kurdistan Regional Government to reach an agreement over
legislation so that they can enhance investment so that everybody knows
what the fair legal basis is for this.
We
don't support oil exports from any part of Iraq without the appropriate
approval of the Iraqi Government, and we're calling on the Government of
Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to continue to try to work
through their differences. We also call on neighboring states to
similarly avoid any action or comment that can contribute in any way to
increasing tensions.
That's
not a position of neutrality. That's a position (yet again) backing
neocon Princess Nouri al-Maliki, the man Bully Boy Bush installed as
prime minister in 2006 and that Barack Obama insisted in 2010 -- despite
the Iraqi people's vote and the Constitution -- must have a second term
as prime minister.
The
roots of the crisis date back to the year 2007 when the Iraqi
government refused to recognise contracts concluded independently by the
independently with foreign oil companies, declaring them illegal.
Hamza
al-Jawahiri, an oil expert, said that the KRG and the central
government in Baghdad interpret the constitution differently.
"While
KRG believes that it is its right to develop its oil industry, conclude
oil contracts and control oil production, the Oil Ministry in Baghdad
considers that crude oil belongs to all Iraqis, not to citizens of any
area be it in the center, the south or the north," he reveals.
So when Nuland says the following, she's not being neutral, she's picking a side:
We
don't support oil exports from any part of Iraq without the appropriate
approval of the Iraqi Government, and we're calling on the Government
of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to continue to try to work
through their differences. We also call on neighboring states to
similarly avoid any action or comment that can contribute in any way to
increasing tensions.
Note that Nuland
doesn't say the Constitution. Because many observers feel the KRG is
correct in their interpretation of the Constitution (legally, they also
have custom on their side now as a result of the practice in place in
the last years). This was not neutrality. This was taking a position
which is that the US State Dept doesn't want the KRG to be able to sell
its oil.
While it was largely ignored in the US press, it was clear to the world's press what was going on. Murat Yetkin (Hurriyet Daily News) grasped it. Or as the headline to another article made clear, " U.S. warns Turkey over Iraqi oil."
Nuland is picking a side and someone should have asked her, "What is
the KRG supposed to do?" Iraq was supposed to pass a hydrocarbons law
long ago. Princess Nouri gave his word to Bully Boy Bush that he would
see to it in 2007. It didn't happen then. It didn't happen in 2008.
It still hasn't happened. So no oil sold until one is passed? Is that
what Nuland's advocating? No, of course not. She's advocating on
behalf of Princess Nouri al-Maliki.
Courtney Howard (Avionics Intelligence) reports
Lockheed Martin has delivered 2 C-130J aircrafts to Baghdad. Three
more are supposed to be delivered next year. That's taking sides. If
you don't get that, Lockheed Martin has issued a helpful press release
explaining that the planes will be used for "humanitarian relief
operations in various locations" and "for intra-theater support for its
troops." That means Nouri will use them to support his forces in Iraq.
Even if those forces are going up against, for example, the Peshmerga.
Sides were long ago chosen while Nuland and the US government pretend
that they are being neutral.
On the issue of Turkey and the lack of neutrality on the part of the US government, Press TV reports
US intelligence is predicting that Turkey will be subdivided into
multiple parts by 2030. What are they talking about? The US National
Intelligence Council started "in 1979, the NIC has served as a bridge
between the intelligence and policy communities, a source of deep
substantive expertise on intelligence issues, and a facilitator of
Intelligence Community collaboration and outreach." Monday the National
Intelligence Council's Matthew Burrows and Christopher Kojm gave a
briefing on their organization's new report "Global Trends 2030:
Alternative Worlds." PDF format warning, click here.
The report bills itself as "the fifth installment in the National
Intelligence Council's series aimed at providing a framework for
thinking about the future." They're attempting to play soothsayer and
forecast the future.
It isn't
sacred text, it isn't holy. It's the sort of crap Faith Popcorn briefly
made a name for herself with or that Jeane Dixon did for years in the
tabloids. It's a political and biased
document and to
pretend otherwise is to be ignorant of the text. It accepts that
"entitlements" are destructive to the United States (though a "sever
pandemic" could fix that!) and spends a great deal of time trashing the
programs many depend on like Social Security. It is interesting to
realize that the official position of the US intelligence community is
that Social Security is a threat to the nation. These are policy
positions, this not neutral analysis. They're also pro-fracking in one
ridiculous segment. This is garbage and wasted taxpayer money.
Iran's
Press TV was so busy gleefully bleeting the predictions about Turkey
that it seems to miss the dire predictions for Iran. It also predicts
that it's likely China will collapse. Let's focus on Iraq which is
barely mentioned in the report.
It's noted
that Iraq is forecast to decline in precipitation by 2050 by 13.3%. It
is argued that the US being painted as the "great enemy" is something
that is becoming less popular an likely: "The impending withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq and decreases in US forces in Afghanistan help to
reduce the extent to which terrorists can draw on the United States as a
lightening rod for anger." There are concerns about Iraq not being
able to remain the country it currently is, "Fragmentation along ethnic
and religious lines in Iraq and Syria could lead to an unraveling of
current borders" and that Iraq's "government is already showing signs of
reverting to factionalism." It further notes that it's one of the
states (Libya, Yemen and Syria being the others named) "where sectarian
tensions were often simmering below the surface as autocratic regimes
co-opted minority groups and imposed harsh measures to keep ehtnic
rivalries in check. In even of a more fragmented Iraq or Syria, a
Kurdistan would not be inconceivable."
For
the cost of a round of beers, you probably could have gotten the same
'data analysis' on Iraq from any group of people in this country paying
attention to the situation. Again, a grave waste of taxpayer money.
Susan Saad. Alsumaria reports
the female MP with the National Alliance delivered a denuciation of
calls for investiations into the prison abuse scandal and calls for
accountability. Saad sputtered in public with great indignation over
the fact that these charges of abuse were not coming from the Ministry
of Justice but from women who had been imprisoned! Imagine that. Let's
break it down so we all get how stupid Susan Saad was today. Prisoner
abuse is only real if the complaint comes from the officials who would
be doing the abusing (I believe that would be known as "confessions")
and it is not believable when it comes from former female prisoners --
wome who can document the scars from torture.
The government of Iraq wastes money as well. Alsumaria reports
Susan Saad, MP with the National Alliance, delivered a denunciation of
calls for investiations into the prison abuse scandal and calls for
accountability. Saad sputtered in public with great indignation over
the fact that these charges of abuse were not coming from the Ministry
of Justice but from women who had been imprisoned.
While she did damage control for Nouri al-Maliki, All Iraq News reports
Iraqiya MP Faiza al-Obeidi is calling for the Minister of Justice to
face questions about the violations in the prisons. She noted that
despite repeated assertions of violations, the Minister does not appear
to have taken any steps to address the issue. The article also notes
that women's rights groups are calling for a full investigation into the
allegations. Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports
that Parliament's Security and Defense Committee's preliminary
investiation has found no cases of rape but they have found cases where
women were threatened with rape. The report covers fourteen female
inmates, the youngest of which was eleven-years-old. Alsumaria adds
that Hassan Shammari, Minister of Justice, is stating that this is not a
topic for speculation. Or for investigation judging by the Ministry's
refusal to address the allegations that have been made publicly for some
time now. Meanwhile, Nouri's State of Law staged a huff and a walk-out of Parliament today.
They also turned on one of their own. In December of last year, Nouri
wanted Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of his post (with
the intention being to sue him as soon as he was -- he told CNN Nouri
had become a dictator) and he wanted Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi
arrested for terrorism. (Both men are Sunni and members of Iraqiya --
the political slate that defeated Nouri's State of Law in the 2010
elections.)
As the world watched Nouri uncork
the crazy, Stae of Law MP Hussein al-Asadi ran all over the place
vouching for Nouri and defending him. So it's fitting that Alsumaria is reporting State of Law announced today that they had frozen the membership of Hussein al-Asadi. All Iraq News reports
the suspension but also doesn't note whether or not it is permament.
This is the second high profile snubbing of one of Nouri's supporters.
As the $4.2 billion Russian deal collarpsed (Iraqi officials in Russia
this week insist that the deal is still going), Nouri turned on his
spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh who ended up fleeing the country and
decrying the attempt to try him in the media. Today, AFP reports, Tareq al-Hasehmi has been sentenced to death again -- this is his "fifth death sentence."
In other disturbing news Iraq's Journalistic Freedom Observatory notes,
a team of Alsumaria workers were prepaing a report when they were
attacked (physically -- punches were thrown at them) by Iraq's security
forces in Baghdad on Monday. The attack took place in Baghdad's Tahrir
Square. The Journalistic Freedom Observatory also notes
that Saifi Qaisi, editori-in-chief of Safir newspaper, disappeared
Sunday when he left a management and editorial meeting to return home by
cab but never made it home. The fifty-year-old has a wife and three
children and has been a journalist since the 1980s.
In news that will have Victoria Nuland panting, Alsumaria reports
that OPEC is going to keep a ceiling on production; however, Iraq is
saying it won't cut production. OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries, met yesterday in Vienna, Austria. Abdul-Kareem
Luaibi Bahedh is the Minister of Oil in Iraq and he was president of the
conference. Addressing the assembled, he noted: I
should like to extend a special welcome to His Excellency Dr Abdel Bari
Ali Al-Arousi, the Minister of Oil and Gas of Libya, who is attending
the Conference for the first time as Head of his Country's Delegation.
Let me also thank his predecessor, His Excellency Eng Abdurahman
Benyezza, for his contributions to the Conference during his time in
office.
As we approach the end of the year, we are faced with a
period of continuing uncertainty about the oil market outlook. To a
great extent, this reflects the lack of a clear vision on the economic
front. The global economy has experienced a persistent deceleration
since the beginning of the year. The combination of an austerity-driven
Euro-zone, the weakening recovery in Japan and clear signs of a slowdown
in major emerging economies has provided the main factors behind this
development. In the light of this, world oil demand growth forecasts for
this year have been revised down frequently. At the same time, non-OPEC
supply and OPEC natural gas liquid output have continued to perform
well, outpacing demand growth. This trend is not expected to change in
the coming year, with the market continuing to see high volumes of
crude supply and increasing production capacity.
Turning to oil
prices, while these have strengthened in the six months since the
Conference last met, there have been continuing fluctuations. In June,
at around the time of the Conference, prices were at their lowest daily
levels for the year, with the Reference Basket price below US $100 a
barrel throughout the month. It even fell below $90/b for three days.
However, the Basket price then rallied strongly past $110/b in the
middle of August. But after that, for most of the time since
mid-September, it has been several dollars a barrel beneath this mark.
This drop has reflected mounting concern about the global economic
slowdown, the pessimistic future demand outlook and significant
stockbuilds of crude in the United States of America. Such downward
pressures have outweighed supply concern arising from geopolitical
factors.
For its part, OPEC continues to do what it can to
achieve and maintain a stable oil market. A key aspect of this is to
ensure that the market remains well supplied with crude at all times,
with fair and reasonable prices. For this to happen, there must be clear
planning for the future, with sound investment strategies ensuring the
necessary levels of production capacity in the years ahead. But the
drawing-up of such strategies is impeded by uncertainties on both the
demand and the supply fronts, as well as by high levels of price
volatility. Clearly there are many doubts about the market outlook
today. Without market stability - that is, sustainable market stability -
all parties will suffer, producers and consumers alike.
At
today's meeting, therefore, we shall be examining the market outlook for
next year and further into the future. Our focus will be on enhancing
market stability in the interests of all parties, as well as in
support of steady world economic growth. However, this is not the
responsibility of OPEC alone. If we all wish to benefit from a more
orderly oil market, then we should all be prepared to contribute to it.
This includes consumers, non-OPEC producers, oil companies and
investors, in the true spirit of dialogue and cooperation.Summer Said, Benot Faucon and Hassan Hafidh (Wall St. Journal) note that they did not choose a new secretary-general and instead extended the term of Abdalla Salem el-Badri for another year. The Iranian government, as Trend News Agency reported,
made clear earlier this week that they were opposed to Iraq or Saudi
Arabia getting the post of secretary-general. Of the meeting, Amena Bakr and Emma Farge Vienna (IOL) report:
At
yesterday's meeting of Opec the opening salvos were fired in the
struggle over who takes responsibility for cutting output if oil prices,
now at a comfortable $108 (R937) a barrel, start falling.
After
20 years of war, sanctions and civil strife that left its oil industry
in disarray, Iraq is in no mood to consider curtailing output just as it
starts to take off.
"Iraq
will never cut output," Iraq's Opec governor, Falah Alamri, said.
"Countries that have increased their production in the last two years –
they should do so. This is a sovereign issue, not an Opec issue."
That
was a clear reference to Saudi Arabia, which earlier this year lifted
output to a 30-year high above 10 million barrels a day to prevent oil
prices ballooning after Western sanctions on Iran halved its production.
In
other news, AP can't stop lying. I wasn't even going to mention that.
There's a nomination that went down in flames today. I'm happy. I
don't need to mention it here. By the same token, AP wasn't going to be
called out but then they had to pick up last week's lie yet again.
You
don't look right today. You whored. You whored and you did so in the
public square. Briefly, Nouri al-Maliki -- with UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon at his side -- held a press conference last week (Thursday)
and declared, in response to a question, that Baghdad and Erbil
continued weighing ways to end the stalemate. He stated two proposals
had emerged -- joint-patrols by the Kurds and Nouri's forces or allowing
local regions to do their own patrols. All the Iraqi outlets got this
right. AP issued 'breaking news' and stated Nouri announced a proposal
(two became one!) had been agreed on and that the standoff was over.
AP,
stop whoring. Clearly you were wrong. If an agreement is reached
today, clearly you were wrong. If AP had just acted like it didn't
happen last week (their lie), I wouldn't even be noting it now. We are
short on space and this is being edited as I dictate. But AP had to
bring up their lie and pimp it as truth. They lied. AP versus Al Mada,
All Iraq News, Kitabat, Dar Addustour, Al Rafidayn and Aslumaria?
Everyone was wrong in reporting on that press conference except AP?
Please. AP didn't even acknowledge Ban Ki-moon.
You
got caught whoring, that's bad enough. To continue to pretend is just
embarrassing. Grow the hell up. No link to their trash.
We'll instead note Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) who reports
that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is stating that local police are
going to grab security responsibilities and, when that happens, both
Nouri's Tigris Operation Command and the Peshmerga will withdraw.
There's strong analysis in the piece as well. One point not noted that I
hope does get noted? Nouri started this crisis by sending the Tigris
Operation Command in. If the crisis is now resolved and resolved in the
way that Talabani says (I wouldn't put it past Nouri to back out on the
deal once it was in play), what we're left with is Nouri started a
crisis and won nothing. What Talabani's describing? That was the state
of things before Nouri sent in the Tigris Operation Command which led
to the Peshmerga being sent in. Again, al-Salhy has a strong report
with great analysis. And that's all we would have noted on this topic
if AP -- revealed as a liar today -- hadn't tried to bring in last
week's lie and act like they were correct in their 'report.' If you're
looking for a strong report in Arabic, check out this one by All Iraq News.
Okay,
my apologies, we're having to pull Lynn Woolsey's comments. They will
be in tomorrow's snapshot. I'm editing in my head over the phone and
it's just easiest to grab a chunk of space by dropping her until
tomorrow. US House Rep who was a strong and needed voice against the
Iraq War. We'll also note this from Human Rights Watch tomorrow.
We're going to wind down with military and veterans. First up,
veterans. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. Today her Women Veterans and Other Health Care
Improvement Act of 2012 passed the "Senate by unanimous consent," her
office notes. This is what she stated on the floor of the Senate today:
I
come to the floor today to request unanimous consent for S. 3313, the
Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, which is
unanimously supported by the Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
M. President, this legislation not only
builds upon previous laws to improve VA services for women veterans and
veterans with families --
But it also
brings a new focus to the need for VA to do more to help women veterans
and the spouses of male veterans access assistance for one of the most
impactful and serious wounds of these wars - reproductive and urinary
tract trauma.
As many of you know, the
nature of the current conflict and the use of improvised explosive
devices leaves servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries.
In fact, Army data shows that between 2003 and 2011 nearly 2,000 servicemembers have suffered these battle injuries.
Like
so many of our veterans, these men and women come home looking to
return to their lives, to find employment, and so often to start a
family.
Yet what they find when they go to the VA is that the fertility services available don't meet their complex needs.
In
fact, veterans suffering from these injuries find that the VA is
specifically barred from providing more advanced assisted reproduction
techniques such as In Vitro Fertilization – or IVF
They
are told that despite the fact they have made such an extreme sacrifice
for our nation we cannot provide them with the medical services they
need to start a family.
Veterans like Staff Sergeant Matt Keil – and his wife Tracy, who is here with us today.
Staff
Sergeant Keil was shot in the neck while on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq on
February 24th 2007, just 6 weeks after he married the love of his life –
Tracy.
The bullet went through the right
side of his neck, hit a major artery, went through his spinal cord, and
exited through his left shoulder blade.
Staff Sergeant Keil instantly became a quadriplegic.
Doctors informed Tracy her husband would be on a ventilator for the rest of his life, and would never move his arms or legs.
Staff
Sergeant Keil eventually defied the odds and found himself off the
ventilator and beginning a long journey of physical rehabilitation.
Around that same time, Tracy and her husband started exploring the possibilities of starting a family together.
Having children was all they could talk about, once they adjusted to their new normal.
With
Staff Sergeant Keil's injuries preventing him from having children
naturally, Tracy turned to the VA for assistance and began to explore
her options for fertility treatments.
Feeling
defeated after being told the VA had no such programs in place for her
situation, Tracy and Staff Sergeant Keil decided to pursue IVF through
the private sector.
While they were
anxious to begin this chapter of their lives, they were confronted with
the reality that Tricare did not cover any of the costs related to
Tracy's treatments -- because she did not have fertility issues beyond
her husband's injury.
Left with no further
options, the Keil's decided this was important enough to them that they
were willing to pay out-of-pocket – to the tune of almost $32,000 per
round of treatment.
Thankfully, on
November 9, 2010, just after their first round of IVF, Staff Sergeant
Keil and Tracy welcomed their twins Matthew and Faith into the world.
Tracy told me,
"The
day we had our children something changed in both of us. This is
exactly what we had always wanted, our dreams had arrived.
"The
VA, Congress and the American People have said countless times that
they want to do everything they can to support my husband or make him
feel whole again and this is your chance.
"Having
a family is exactly what we needed to feel whole again. Please help us
make these changes so that other families can share in this experience."
I have heard from these severely injured
veterans and while the details of these stories vary, the common thread
that runs through them all is that these veterans were unable to obtain
the type of assistance they need.
Some
have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector – like
Tracy and her husband -- to get the advanced reproductive treatments
they need to start a family.
Others have
watched their marriages dissolve because the stress of infertility, in
combination with the stresses of readjusting to life after severe
injury, drove their relationship to a breaking point.
Any servicemember who sustains this type of serious injury deserves so much more.
The
bill I am here asking to pass today will give VA broad authority to
offer advanced fertility treatments to the most severely wounded
veterans, their spouses, or surrogates.
It also gives VA the authority to determine how best to offer these benefits.
It
reverses this troubling barrier to care and will bring the VA in line
with the military which provides these services to this same groups of
servicemembers.
This is common sense legislation that we should pass without delay.
In fact, the NY Times recently ran an editorial on this bill and said,
"In
more than a decade of combat overseas, the military and V.A. have
continually had to adjust to the challenges of new traumas with new
treatments, as with the epidemic of brain injuries and post-traumatic
stress. Adapting the V.A. health system to better meet
reproductive-health needs should be part of that response. It is one
compassionate way to fulfill the country's duty to wounded veterans."
They also noted that even this Congress should be capable of a bipartisan agreement to pass it.
M. President, I couldn't agree more.
And I can't think of any reason why all Republicans and Democrats wouldn't join us today.
This
is about giving veterans who have sacrificed everything -- every option
we have to help them fulfill the simple dream of starting a family.
It says that we are not turning our back on the catastrophic reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars.
It
says to all those brave men and women that didn't ask questions when
they were put in harm's way, that we won't let politics get in the way
of our commitment to you.
M. President, we can't let this bill get bogged down in the obstruction that has become typical of this body.
This is too important to delay with procedural tactics.
The VA has an obligation to care for the combat wounded
That should include access to the care they need.
And our women veterans deserve this, our male veterans deserve this, and our military and veteran families deserve this.
Thank you M. President.
I'd
now like to offer a unanimous consent request for passage of S. 3313,
the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012.
It's
an important issue and I'd like to return to it if we could tomorrow.
Now we move to the military. Leon Panetta is the Secretary of Defense.
I know and like Leon Panetta. We're including the topic because it's
an issue that's not going to go away and that is getting heated. (When I
had an argument on it today, I realized it had to make it into the
snapshot or I would be accused of letting Leon off because I like
him.) Dan Lamothe (Marine Corps Times) has an article
you can reference. Here are the basics on the issue: Sgt Rafael
Peralta died while serving in Iraq on November 15, 2004. He was a
25-year-old Marine who was born in Mexico and who joined the US Marines
after the age of 20 when he received his green card
(2000). For years, members of Congress have argued that Peralta should
be awarded the Medal of Honor. The new Mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner,
began advocating for that in 2004 when he served in Congress. US House
Rep Duncan Hunter has picked up the cause. Leon Panetta has denied the
request.
For The Medal of Honor to mean what
it's supposed to, it does have to be given out for those whose actions
warrant it. I think most people would agree with that. And a Navy
Cross, the decoration that Peralta was awarded (in 2008) is certainly a
worthy honor. But where I fault Panetta is in doling out information.
Yesterday there were stories based on what people were saying.
US
House Rep Hunter has released Panetta's letter to him denying the Medal
of Honor to Peralta. Dunan Hunter's office released the following
today:
Washington, D.C. -- This morning, Representative Duncan Hunter commented that he was "beyond disappointed" after receiving an official response from Secretary Panetta regarding the decision not to award the Medal of Honor to Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta.
"Sergeant
Peralta is a hero," said Representative Hunter. "He died in service to
his country and he died protecting his fellow Marines. He and his
family are an inspiration to me and many others, for their courage,
their dedication and their sacrifice.
"While
I vehemently disagree with Secretary Panetta's decision, I do
appreciate the fact that he took the time to personally examine the
Peralta case and consider the new evidence that was submitted. What is
still unsettling to me and many others who have followed this case is
the process that led to Sergeant Peralta's downgrade to the Navy Cross
-- a high honor, but not the Medal of Honor.
"For
the first and only time on record, Secretary Gates formed a scientific
panel consisting of several forensic experts to refute the findings and
recommendation of both the Marine Corps and the Navy. Until then, there
was absolutely no disagreement that Sergeant Peralta's actions were in
the spirit and tradition of the Medal of Honor. Secretary Gates
manufactured the doubt -- the same doubt that led Secretary Panetta not
to award the Medal of Honor. I also have questions about the legal
authority to conduct such a review in accordance to regulations --
something I intend to examine more closely.
"In
his letter, Secretary Panetta makes several points that, in all due
respect, are the same arguments of convenience made by Secretary Gates.
"He specifically raises concerns with
the eyewitness accounts -- the eyewitness accounts of U.S. Marines who
were engaged in combat and saw their brother do the unthinkable. These
Marines know what they saw. They stand by their statements. There were
in fact 5 eyewitness accounts that led to the original decision. Four
of the statements are independent of each other and all four are
consistent. And for the Medal of Honor, the standard has always been
two eyewitness accounts. Not three, not four, not five, but two
eyewitnesses.
"Meanwhile, the new evidence
that was reviewed, including the video, as confirmed through multiple
sources, was not previously considered. The video, in particular,
invalidates Secretary Gates' conclusion that the grenade detonated one
to three feet from Sergeant Peralta's left leg. Also, the pathology
report that was submitted identifies multiple distinct irregularities
with Secretary Gates' findings, such as a piece of the grenade fuse
lodged in Sergeant Peralta's flak jacket, center-mass. Above all, this
evidence was intended to invalidate Secretary Gates' judgment, as it
clearly does. It also reaffirms the original eyewitness accounts.
"The
fact that Sergeant Peralta still has not been awarded the Medal of
Honor he deserves is a severe injustice, not just for Sergeant Peralta,
but his family, his fellow Marines and anyone who has been willing to
fight and die for their country. The only way to correct this error in
judgment is to honor Sergeant Peralta with the award he deserves."
Hunter
is a veteran of both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. Panetta's
is expected to be leaving shortly as Secretary of Defense. This isn't a
time for confusion. If he wants to deny the Medal of Honor in this
instance, he needs to be clear and publicly clear as to why that is. He
may have made the right decision. Let's say he did to move onto how, if
he did, he's now turned it into a bad decision.
He
destroyed a possibly correct decision by the way he handled it. People
should not have to read a letter to Duncan Hunter to know that Panetta
shot down the request. (I didn't find the letter at all illuminating,
others may.) When he leaves, if he hasn't fixed this issue, this should
be a mark against him in grading his tenure as Secretary of Defense.
Fixing the issue does not mean he should award Peralta the Medal of
Honor. If Panetta doesn't feel it's deserved, then that's the
decision. But he needs to be public about that decision. He needs to
own that decision. Thus far, he hasn't. (And when people refuse to own
their decisions, I tend to feel that their decisions must not have been
the correct ones. I doubt I'm alone in drawing that conclusion.)
| 
