DOD, VA Lack Adequate Plan For System To Share Health Care Data
Main Category: IT / Internet / E-mail News
Article Date: 27 Jun 2006 - 20:00 PDT
|
The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have failed to develop an adequate management plan to standardize and integrate systems to share health care information, a Government Accountability Office official said on Thursday, CongressDaily reports.

At a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, Linda Koontz, director of information management issues at GAO, said the agencies lack a clear plan after eight years of effort, despite progress made on two demonstration projects.

Carl Hendricks, chief information officer for the military health system at DOD, testified that under one of the projects, all DOD and VA medical facilities are testing a system that allows the departments to share allergy, lab, outpatient and radiology information in real time. Under the second project, several DOD and VA medical facilities have begun to test a system that allows the departments to share lab order entries and results, Hendricks said.

According to Koontz, DOD and VA have experienced delays in efforts to share health care information and have not fully filled databases to store the information for a future system (CongressDaily, 6/23).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Some time ago, Dubai was turned down as a buyer or our Eastern Ports. They then bought a bunch of defense related industries in our country. Now comes the news that Dubai is in the process of buying from The Bush connected Carlyle Group, more defense related industries in our country for some two Billion Dollars.How about some exposure on the subject. How much did the Carlyle Group pay for the same industry? We depend of the press for disclosure

Perhaps this is just another fabrication, another rumor. Recently I attended approximately 6.5 hours at the hearing about Walter Reed. As a CodePink activist, I was intensely interested in this travesty: Traumatic Brain Injuries, PTSD cases shuffled to the bottom of the pile. I went in thinking that these surgeon generals were a bunch of greedy, self centered doctors ,who did not much care about the seriously injured soldiers. About l.5 hours into the hearing, it hit me. These men were not totally at fault. This was about being understaffed and underfunded. I could easily identify with these men because I am a retired school teacher. Every year after No Child Left Behind, the bar was raised and the resources were lowered. The job was impossible.

To get back to Walter Reed and the "rumor." I was told that
the real story was that pirate operation Halliburton held up the funding for Walter Reed for three years until they could get a no bid contract. Could the investigative reporters, I believe their names were Dana Priest and Ann Hull, follow up on this if they dare. I think this would be a rather dangerous assignment since HALLIBURTON is our nation's sacred cow.And well protected by Dick Cheney and company. It is still such a surprise to me that the United States Supreme Court ruled that Cheney's very secretive energy policy was going to be protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Does this branch also serve at the President's pleasure. After all they did decide and declare him the President of the United States. The people did not decide this. Members of the Supreme Court, do you consider yourselves honest and objective people. I know our now deceased former Supreme Court Justice was, in his final years, prescribed medications that have a powerful affect on the mind and body. Does the court ever discuss in private how his decisions may have affected the outcome of that election. It looks like another Big Case concerning out Pseudpresident may be coming up. Your handling of this case, I do believe, will be closely watched. And the same question will apply? Will you be objective or will you,too, serve at the president's pleasure?

Arkin is almost right, but not quite: Congressional "earmarks," such as the cancer research funding, DO come at the expense of DoD's wants. They are handed back as "undistributed reductions" - negatives that must be spread against DoD budget lines in whatever fashion the comptrollers of the Services can devise, excepting, of course, pay accounts and other things mandated by the Congress.

Alex,

The use of the word "elitist" is a code word used by the far right and is used in the exact context as I described. Your falling back on partisan name calling is proof you can not in an honest debate defend your positions. This applies to all political positions. The only reason I bring the use of this word up is due to the fact you are fooling no one but yourself.

As another commenter alluded to, name calling from the left and the right is pulling this blog down. This includes continued name calling on Arkin where he is constantly personally attacked by a few, and they know who they are. If you disagree with his positions then debate those positions with facts and not childish name calling to him.

some no name replying to alex writes:"Alex uses the term "elitist" to make his point that we are a "highly educated democracy". Aren't educated people "elitist"? What do you mean by "elitist" or is someone pulling the wool over your eyes with partisan code words? Alex are you an "elitist" or a high school drop out?"
An elitist would claim someone else didnt know better , which is exactley what the poster I was replying to did. You need to read my post and the other persons otherwise, yr gonna get lost and post something cryptic like the above.
Posted by: Alex

some no name replying to alex writes:"Alex uses the term "elitist" to make his point that we are a "highly educated democracy". Aren't educated people "elitist"? What do you mean by "elitist" or is someone pulling the wool over your eyes with partisan code words? Alex are you an "elitist" or a high school drop out?"

An elitist would claim someone else didnt know better , which is exactley what the poster I was replying to did. You need to read my post and the other persons otherwise, yr gonna get lost and post something cryptic like the above.

Arkin's "Early Warning" article helps narrow down the issue at Walter Reed. As addressed by Arkin, Walter Reed is the tip of the iceberg--more than two thirds of the issue lies below; that is where the evidence of a military health care system gone awry is clearly visible.

As a military veteran, I saw my "free healthcare for life benefit" repackaged as an HMO in the 90s. Of course today's military and congressional leaders who are looking to increase veteran healthcare costs as a means to balance an overburdened DoD budget will deny that soldiers, sailors and airmen were promised free healthcare, but that in fact is the truth. Career/Reenlistment Counselors routinely used free healthcare for life and education as their primary marketing tools in the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s.

One can only imagine the type of healthcare and service received by other veterans, when problems for our IRAQ war casualties are exposed so easily. The consequences of the Iraq war are in the press daily and DoD leaders are well aware of the public's awareness and concerns regarding this conflict, however, someone got caught napping which is shocking considering the visibility of our soldiers and increasing unpopularity of war. As a result, it's time we dig deeper into the issue of military healthcare and find out how this essential service was allowed to deteriorate. Many questions need to be asked, such as:

Is it fair that those who served honorably should have to pay for healthcare they were told was free? Why is it that so many providers do not accept the military's HMO provider, Tricare? Why is it so difficult for military retirees to get healthcare appointments? Is it right that military retiree healthcare is a line item in the DoD budget? Why are DoD and Congressional leaders so quick to propose healthcare costs be raised for military retirees (for the answer see the question above)? Why is it that task force members reviewing these issues are comprised of senior military leaders, past and present, when this group are the least affected by these costs? Why not add retired enlisted members to task forces reviewing this situation? These are good questions, but there is more to ponder.

How can healthcare costs have gotten so out of hand? Hasn't the military been downsizing since 1991? During this period, the Air Force has gone from an active duty end strength of more than 610,000 to under 330,000. Shouldn't this have freed up money for healthcare? Oh maybe this money has been reobligated to Defense Contractors as part of the military's outsourcing initiatives to reduce spending. Could it be that outsourcing has failed by not decreasing costs and maybe even adversely affected services such as healthcare? I find this to be a highly likely and as a result I'm sure some former military and government leaders that serve as board members or consultants for these companies have faired very well financially.

My end thought is to encourage Mr. Arkin and other members of the media to keep digging, while encouraging military veteran's to speak out on this issue. Our military members (past and present) need to know the values they were taught, such as Duty, Honor, Country and Integrity, Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do, mean something to our DoD and Legislative leaders. The lip service to veterans needs to stop and the truth needs to be told. You (DoD and Legislative leaders) made commitments to your troops and now it's time to make good on your promises. These people who have served, and continue to serve, their country faithfully deserve better. It is time to look at the whole issue and fix this problem.

Mr Arkin,

Still waiting on that in-depth story from you on the obscene amenities you claim are being provided to our armed forces.

*Chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

Give me an H, give me an A, give me an L, give me an L....

The ad hominem attacks at this blogsite are dragging down the quality of debate.

Those who are wasting words and space just to engage in name calling and back biting are not just being childish -- they're wasting my time.

Time is the stuff that Life is made of. So I'm leaving this playground to the name callers and back biters.

We would be just as pleased if you stayed downwind, you STINK. No one in this blog including Arkin has ever made humor out of wounded troops, but storm trooper ssean has dropped to a new low.

As far as supporting wars, or not supporting wars Son, I dont just talk on blogs...I actually go downrange to support my "views"

Posted by: SSean

Is and the rest of you;

Here you are defending Arkin Weasel when my comments were straight in line with what he believes...He really does loathe the American Soldier. Since we have to go over this again, he called them Mercenaries...then, based on Abu Ghraib and a few stories from Guantanamo, stated that our soldiers were basically lucky that they were not spit upon...then he had the audacity to say that serving soldiers have no First Amendment rights and THEN he said that they were given obscene...say it with me people, obscene support in a combat zone...

So "Is", Supposed "Mother of a Wounded Soldier" (sounds like something Arkin Weasel would call himself on this blog hiding like he does) this is what Arkinweasel did say above...taking that he actually loathes the American Soldier OBVIOUSLY, I dont see the stretch I made with my opinion of what his views are on this subject...dont care if you dont like it..

And Maddog, I will write whatever I want on this blog. As far as hateful goes, you should take Mr Arkin to task for calling me and my soldiers Mercenaries and comparing the overwhelming majority of us to those few who were in Abu Ghraib...that was hateful and that was BILE...

As far as supporting wars, or not supporting wars Son, I dont just talk on blogs...I actually go downrange to support my "views"

Sean, what were you thinking when you ridiculed our wounded troops? Some advice to you, engage your brain first, before you engage your typing fingers. You now wear the weasel crown.

I was just wondering if the Bush extended family, that has profited greatly from oil, has donated funds or time, (time other than five minute photos opts and funds other than non-tax deductable) to caring for our wounded veterans?

For the war, against the war.Even those for the war have to acknowledge that the incompetence displayed by this administration in executing it defies description.You cannot execute world changing events if speaking in your native tongue is a challenge you have yet to overcome.Because a man dies foolishly you cannot use that death to justify another mans death.If we pull out of Iraq we may have to go back in but I pray that if we do go back in the leadership is equal to the great young men and women we send there.

Sean you are a disgrace to our troops. To write what you did shows callous disrespect for those serving our country. What in the hell is your problem? What kind of man are you to think like that when these brave souls have sacrificed so much for you! It makes me sick that someone like you calls yourself an American. To make a joke out these wounded men shows what pervert you are. You should be the one maimed for life and not them.

I am surprised Arkinweasel did not say that we spend way to much on our brain injured soldiers...I figured he would say something like

"We spend obscene amounts on prosthetics and brain research...those lowlife soldiers are lucky we are not throwing them in the street with a crutch after Abu Ghraiba and Guantanomo...They got what they signed up for those mercenaries...they knew the deal going in... lose a leg...too damn bad...you deserved it you baby killer..."

I figured that is what he wanted to say...isnt it Arkin?

Posted by: SEan

Alex uses the term "elitist" to make his point that we are a "highly educated democracy". Aren't educated people "elitist"? What do you mean by "elitist" or is someone pulling the wool over your eyes with partisan code words? Alex are you an "elitist" or a high school drop out?

Actually the right wing nut jobs use the term "elitist" to fool lower income less educated people into thinking Democrats are wealthy and educated, basically to pull the wool over their eyes and keep them voting republican. Somebody was certainly fooled or lied to or else we wouldn't be in the Iraq mess.

This is a pretty elitist view. We live in a highly educated democracy. Its not like communist china or soviet era Russia. We make choices and I dont think the wool is easily pulled over the eyes of the citizens in this country. No country has as open a debate or a more vibrant and active media.It is a standard leftist view that we are all being fooled and that only certain people can see the truth, i.e those on the left. I believe people on both sides of the debate weigh and measure there choices in an educated rational manner. I think we need to respect that and then discuss the issues.
Posted by: alex

"...I'm tired of responding to the 'empty warheads' that support the war(s).

maddog56"

LOL. Save your breath, hippy. When I want your opinion I'll ask you for it. Go slap a rainbow sticker on your silly bydrid and drive back to SF. Be sure to give Nancy Pelosi my best...hahahahaha.

Dear MadDog,

Thanks for your praise for some of my commments excoriating "The Media"/journalists for letting the American citizens down. [Don't we know one another from a different time in along ago b-tesing chat group/]

Concerning your, "But anyone questioning Bush/adminstration's propaganda were labelled as "traitors" and "soft and terrorsim". But, the American people were not paying attention and most aren't paying attention now."

I understand your sentiment but disagree with your conclusion.

My question was: Based on polling, a majority of Americans generated views based on the nonsense coming out of the collective Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Powell mouths in 2002. If Americans had been disingaged then their answers would have been: "I dunno."

But in 2002, 75-80% answered, "Saddam Hussein is working on WMD" and "Saddam is Osama Bin Laden's cohort."

Then a war was launched in 2003 against Iraq with flags waving and yellow ribbons sprouting.

Between, 2001-2002-2003, the media was silent on factual content coming out of Washington. Never mind institutional analysis that would answer the question: "what are they up to?" Instead, the media has reinforced the Bush administrtaion misinformation by uncritically repeating the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Powell messages.

Aldous Huxley said it best in his 1932 novel, "Brave New World": " ... 50,000 repetitions produces a fact."

The high number of severe casualties surviving IED shock waves damaging brain tissue is a disgrace. A warrior who chooses this profession might consider a living will. It seems to me dying in battle is the honorable way for a warrior to die, not with someone changing his diapers for the rest of his life.

maddog writes:The terms have no meaning is really all that need be said. They could mean anything, but often mean nothing at all. They are nice catch-phrases, and at this point they are used to incite the masses to support bad foreign or domestic policy

This is a pretty elitist view. We live in a highly educated democracy. Its not like communist china or soviet era Russia. We make choices and I dont think the wool is easily pulled over the eyes of the citizens in this country. No country has as open a debate or a more vibrant and active media.It is a standard leftist view that we are all being fooled and that only certain people can see the truth, i.e those on the left. I believe people on both sides of the debate weigh and measure there choices in an educated rational manner. I think we need to respect that and then discuss the issues.

Well SEan:

Why accuse Arkin of "wanting to say" something he did not say nor did he even hint or suggest at.

_I_ think "that we spend way to much on our brain injured soldiers." I think so only because the wars have _no_ justification. If you want to blame anyone for inadequate medical expenditures, blame the Bush "empty-warhead" crowd. [Bush is asleep at the wheel _again_.] Without them, we wouldn't need to throw more money at these problems. We should give our soldiers the best treatment we can, but many of these soldiers who have been damaged physically and/or psychologically will _never_ be well again. And that is the fault of Bush and the people who support him.

The problem is not those of us who oppose the war. We were right even before March 20, 2003. The problem is with the supporters of the war(s). Bring the soldiers home NOW!

We can reasonably disagree. Try to be civil in your posts. Otherwise, take your bilious, hateful posts elsewhere.

maddog56

"Alex writes:

"Maddog writes:"The terms "national security" and "national interest" no longer have any meaning. "
whats this mean ?"

The terms have no meaning is really all that need be said. They could mean anything, but often mean nothing at all. They are nice catch-phrases, and at this point they are used to incite the masses to support bad foreign or domestic policy. _Anything_ could potentially threaten our national security. _Anything_ could be said to be in or not in our national interests. But when these terms are used as a justification, no further explanation is given. Yet people are ready to go to war based on those vague terms. In addition the terms are often used to describe government policies that are _embarrassing_ to our government, but can't be revealed because doing so would allegedly jeopardize our national security ot national interests. Illegal wiretapping of ordinary citizens or testimony by or about Guantanamo "detainees" are two such cases. The terms mean nothing, but they sound good to the listener who, upon hearing the terms, incorrectly assumes that the user is acting out of conerns for our "national security" and "national interest". Rarely is that the case.

maddog56

I am surprised Arkinweasel did not say that we spend way to much on our brain injured soldiers...I figured he would say something like

"We spend obscene amounts on prosthetics and brain research...those lowlife soldiers are lucky we are not throwing them in the street with a crutch after Abu Ghraiba and Guantanomo...They got what they signed up for those mercenaries...they knew the deal going in... lose a leg...too damn bad...you deserved it you baby killer..."

I figured that is what he wanted to say...isnt it Arkin?

[url=][/url]

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

With 18,000 votes missing, Congress
must order a re-vote in Sarasota, Florida.
Almost 200,000 people have already called on Congress to hold a re-vote in Sarasota.
Join them, and call Congress today: 1-202-224-3121..

Florida, home of the hanging chad, is still having trouble running a fair election. Electronic voting machines have
apparently lost 18,000 votes in a House race where one candidate is leading by just 369 votes.
Despite warnings about paperless voting machines, Congress failed to require a paper record of every vote. Now,
there's no way to recount the votes short of holding a new election.
Congress has the power and the obligation to order a new election--and they have done it before. Then Congress
must pass legislation to mandate a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast and repair our nation's elections.
Only a new election will dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the Sunshine State.
Almost 200,000 people have already called on Congress to hold a re-vote in Sarasota.

Join them, and call Congress today: 1-202-224-3121.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/flelection.html

http://cie.edu/images/online/abortion

http://cie.edu/images/online/abortion

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Walter Reed scandal lifts lid on neglect of wounded US troops

By Barry Grey in Washington DC
10 March 2007

The past week has seen a flurry of congressional hearings, the appointment of review boards and commissions, and the firing of two high-level Pentagon officials--all in response to a series of articles published last month by the Washington Post documenting the neglect and mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC.

The articles exposed the squalid living conditions and bureaucratic indifference that outpatient soldiers, returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with serious physical and mental injuries, have been forced to endure at the most prestigious military medical facility in the country.

Soldiers suffering from traumatic brain injuries or stress disorders, others with amputated limbs, have languished for weeks and months on end in vermin-infested quarters waiting for a decision on their military status and a ruling on the level of benefits they will receive if they are discharged and transferred to the civilian-run Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system.

Professions of shock and outrage have come from every quarter of official Washington. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have each issued public statements and Bush appointed a bipartisan commission to report back in June on the treatment of wounded troops at both military and VA facilities. He also named Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson to head an inter-agency task force. Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed his own review board following the firing of the military commander at Walter Reed and the forced resignation of the secretary of the army.

Congressional Republicans have vied with Democrats in decrying the conditions at Walter Reed and other medical facilities for veterans at multiple hearings throughout the week.

That conditions such as those at Walter Reed exist at other military hospitals, and that many disabled veterans get inadequate care and face long, bureaucratic delays in the VA system, are not revelations to US civilian and military policymakers. Such conditions are the end result of inadequate funding and staffing, for which Congress and the White House are both responsible. There have, moreover, been published reports on substandard care and bureaucratic logjams at Walter Reed, Fort Stewart in Georgia and other Department of Defense facilities for years, and government audits have pointed to pervasive problems in the provision of medical care to wounded soldiers.

The appearance of the Washington Post series in the first place is a reflection of the immense growth of antiwar sentiment among the American people as a whole, and its mounting expression among soldiers, veterans and their families. The Post reported March 5 that hundreds of soldiers at military medical holding units around the country had contacted the newspaper to report conditions similar to those exposed at Walter Reed, and that thousands of emails and phone calls had been received from veterans complaining of substandard care at VA hospitals.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/reed-m10.shtml

Maddog writes:"The terms "national security" and "national interest" no longer have any meaning. "

whats this mean ?

Well Shannon. I can't find the word "contempt" anywhere in Mr Arkin's article. You admit that you and other military personnel have contempt for Arkin and people like him. Here's the problem you just cannot get! The military is here ONLY to SERVE us civilians. If you can't find any "merit in anything you have written in the past nor any of your [Arkin's] future musings.", then get lost. None of your comments are helpful... IMO you are not a valued reader. But, I'm beginning to have contempt for the military, top to bottom. They suck us dry financially, we get nothing in return except platitudes regarding your defence of U.S. Bush and the military are the problem. $500 + billion per year and it's all for nothing. We could cut the military budget by 90% and still be as (in)secure as we now are. Get lost.

Bert: I agree with you. The military-industrial complex took the money and ran, just as Eisenhower warned. Unfortunately they now control government policy. Many of us are talking about impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It's time to stop talking. We can then force march their GOP/neo-con supporters into the Atlantic--they never learn and confuse militarism with patriotism. They are the actual traitors to this country.

dl: You're an idiot. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue anymore. The "liberal" label no longer works except for neo-con FOX-heads. The GOP proved they cannot run the country.

Frank: Thanks for your reasoned input. It's good to hear from an insider who posts in a moderate "tone". But, here's where I probably disagree with you. No country needs to spend as much money as we do on the military. The terms "national security" and "national interest" no longer have any meaning. We have too many social problems and could win much goodwill with other countries with even one years of "defence" funding. And I think we need to ask another question. "what do we really need to spend for defence?" Current defence spending is eating us alive and I don't give a damn if current spending is less relative to GDP at some point in the past. The cold war is over. We have no enemies who can seriously threaten us.

Well B.D from N.H.: Bullets and bombs are the "obscene amenities" being sent to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. And stop using the word "troop". You use the word incorrectly and out of total ignorance. Bring our military personnel home from Iraq an Afghanistan, as well as Europe, Korea, and all the other countries we have soldiers in. ( 37 bases in Okinawa? ) If you're hot on war why don't you get your flabby ass over to Iraq and do some fighting on your own.

Frederick Sweet: You about have it right. I lived in the DC area from 1984 to 2004. During the run-up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq II, I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan since it was simply murder of the innocent and uncomprehending, but I could undertsand the rationale for the invasion[I was right---it was murder]. But, I read the Washington Post and watched political talk shows. I can think of no claim made by the Bush/Cheney administration that was not seriously questioned by the Post or other source such as a very credible journalist on a political talk show. I *never* thought Iraq had WMDs during the run-up to Iraq II. I *never* thought Iraq had anything to do with al-Queada. Osama did not like Saddam's secular government. You can blame the media for not reporting that the Bush administration lies were just that. You can blame "the media" for not pushing the truth at the American people. But anyone questioning Bush/adminstration's propaganda were labelled as "traitors" and "soft and terrorsim". But, the American people were not paying attention and most aren't paying attention now. The mud-slinging continues even though we now know the truth. Yet look at some of the posts here...Arkin is called a liar and a "liberal" for trying to get the truth across. There is nothing you can do to get through to the "true-believers" in this war.

Remember this!!!!!!!!!!!!! This war is a walk in the park compared to WWI or WWII ( see the movie or read the trilogy of books starting "Regeneration" ). Most American soldiers kill from afar, don't even have to look the enemy in the eye. Video game war for most soldiers. BUT, for those coming back severely damaged physically and/or emotionally, they will _never_ be the same person who went over. You can throw all the money you want at them to try to help them. But they are permanently damaged and Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld should be held responsible for every one of of them!

Pat Riot: Bush is your president? You can have he's a coward, a liar, and a disgrace just as you are. Furthermore, unless you're willing to head over to Iraq and fight yourself, you are a coward. Bin Laden may be happy when Bush is attacked by our media. But, Bush is not attacked nearly enough. The attacks should be more frequent and more harsh. BTW, attacks on Bush make me happy as well. What I really want is to get Bush and his group of thugs out of office. And March 2003 would not have been soon enough.

Dr. Rick Lippin: Yep! It could all be unraveling. Bush fiddles while Rome burns. If a history of the U.S. is ever written truthfully, it will be shown that the Bush administration was the most incompetent of all and has _not one_ positive accomplishment to show. We get the government we deserve.

There are quite a few thoughtful posts here tonight. But, I'm tired of responding to the "empty warheads" that support the war(s).

maddog56

I find it funny that you feel that our military has nothing but contempt for the american people. I have many friends and family among the military, and I assure you, not one of them has ever shown contempt for an american. Now, mention your name or any of the other myriad of name calling, self centered, so called military expert journalists? Yes, I think that will breed contempt. In fact you and the others have earned their contempt, by your comments and your actions. I think you would be better off relegated to some small corner, only spouting your opines on perhaps the latest in say, abstract art? (But then again, I don't know that I would wish to inflict you upon the poor starving artists of this world.) I do know this however, I will no longer concern myself with anything you have to say, your opinions are just that, your opinions, and they have absolutely no value with me. I cannot find one ounce of merit in anything you have written in the past nor any of your future musings. To the Post, I must say, congratulations on finding the quickest way ever to lose valued readers by employing and publishing Mr. Arkin's writings.

Regarding Mayan Juan Tiney and his purification of sacred Mayan sites after the honorable President George Bush's visit: Perhaps Mr. Tiney's purification skills would be better used to purify the Mayan archiological ruins that were the sites of human sacrifice and cannibalism on a massive scale for more than a thousand years.

Regarding the persecuted migrant Guatemalan brothers: Let them avoid the awful persecution by GW's United States by stopping when they get as far north as Mexico. One step up the economic ladder per generation should be acceptable anyway.

Stephen Wagner swagner@ptd.net

JUAN CARLOS LLORCA | AP | March 9, 2007 12:20 AM EST

GUATEMALA CITY -- Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

I think what we've read about Walter Reed is just a symptom, I think the problem is that the GOP basically took the money and ran, and so did all the people that invested in all the 'defense' companies, basically under BushCo we watched a whole buncha money get carved off and served out, patronage bigger than life, and with the GOP in majority in Congress, public accountability was a complete and utter joke. Basically, at this point, the dems have been handed 'the bag', and the responsibility for caring for/cleaning up after the Republicans' 'mistakes' has been laid at their feet. Since that seems to be the case, the first thing they can do is lay in some remedial legislation, probably call the troops out of Iraq, and then take issue with Cheney, Halliburton, and the rest of it. Two states have already spoken for impeachment, little towns all over are talking about it, Washington needs a good bath with pumice soap and hard legislation to enforce spending caps. There is no substitute for good oversight, and the GOP has proven itself irresponsible and incompetent to the task. So, as more and more BushCo types get handed their pink slips and court summons, more and more 'truth' will manifest itself on the evening news, I think, and it could well come that by the end of all of this that there really might be impeachment hearings.
Learn how to brew your own ethanol today, and put these people out of business...

"what you mean is the war on honesty and integrity disguised as a
war against ISLAM.."

What a stupid fool. And they wonder why liberals don't belong in congress.

Bill, A couple points.

First, the "AAAS" referred to in this blog entry is not "American Academy of Arts and Sciences" but rather the much more prestigous "American Association for the Advancement of Science". Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. AAAS publishes the prestigous, oft-quoted journal 'Science' which has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million.

Second, the AAAS article refers to DoD S&T 6.1 and 6.2 dollars, and does address DoD Applied Research (6.4-6.5) programs; programs in which I would expect to find funding for specific technologies (such as advanced prostetics, etc.)

Finally, you appear to be confusing Veteran's care with active duty Army care. Although the difference may be transparent to the lay person, there is a hugh difference when it comes to funding processes ; e.g., Walter Reed is part of the active duty health care system, and therefore funded through DoD. Veteran's health care is funded by the Veteran's Administration, a cabinet-level department seperate from the DoD.

Having spent two tours working inside the Pentagon as a programmer on the Navy staff, I respect, appreciate and generally agree with your "inside the Puzzle Palace" perspective. However this time, despite your acknowledgement of a lack of familiarlity with the budgetary process ("I'll readily admit to not being a budget expert, but ...") you did not take the time to learn a bit more before confusing the data (and therefore your readers) in order to make your point.

Finally, I agree with you that our government spending priorities are not aligned with its rhetoric, and that we (the people) should have better insight into what exactly our tax dollars are buying. That rathole of ambiguity and darkness known as "the Budget" - where all is not as it seems, nothing is ever clear, and end-to-end program and operational costs are obscured (intentionally?) - continues to resist the best efforts of literally thousands of intelligent, earnest Pentagon budget and programming professionals to shed light on the very important question you pose, "What is the connection between what we spend and what we get?"

Mr Arkin,

Still eagerly awaiting your story on what you call "obscene amenities" being provided to our troops overseas.

*Chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

JUAN CARLOS LLORCA | AP | March 9, 2007 12:20 AM EST

GUATEMALA CITY -- Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

To Annonymous
Thanks for the updated stats.

The problem is that the Pentagon counting war wounded, battle field wounded, and combat wounded purposely skews these data. The standards for counting casualties in the Vietnam War and Iraq War differ, making it hard to compare the two. But that is the job of the Fifth Estate -- the so-called journalists to take the Bush Administration's mumbo-jumbo and extract the scandalous truth from it.

I don't so much fault Bush and Cheney for being hubristic, heartless monsters because they can't help how they were created. But I can fault our so-called American journalists for being Bush's and Cheney's stenographers.

As for Dr Rick Lippin's:"Does anyone else out there feel like it's ALL unravelling?

If it is unraveling it's no thanks to our journalists. As I demonstrated below, what had been passed off as "scandalous news" from the Washington Post last week is more than three years old "news." Where have the Post reporters been these past three years? More importantly, what have they been doing?

IN 2002,WHERE DID THE AVERAGE AMERICAN GET THE IDEA THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD ATOMIC WEAPONS -- OR WAS EVEN WORKING ON THEM? IN 2002,WHERE DID THE AVERAGE AMERICAN GET THE IDEA THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN AND OSAMA BIN LADEN WERE ALLIES? This can be blamed on the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell lies. But while these men were lying, what were American journalists doing? Answer: Recording and then proliferating the lies.

Proliferating the lies is not journalism. It's propaganda.

In war, it is often preferable to seriously injure enemy combatants rather than kill them, because of the vastly higher cost of care for injured soldiers compared to the cost of deceased servicemenbers. The continual images of disfigured members of the military creates an emotional drain over time. In this conflict, our adversaries know this fact very well.

==In Bush's first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%==
------------------------------------------
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=144.html
------------------------------------------
I guess Clinton did not cut VA budget after all, increasing it steadily in time of peace.

==Bush has raised the money the VA gets every year he's been in office, unlike Bill Clinton, who cut their budget every year.==

Bush also maimed tens of thousands of soldiers, now requireing medical and mental help.

==Also, my sources tell me that the soldiers from the original article in this paper are part of the democrat party trying to undermine MY President.==

What you are now on some kind of private espionage mission, trying to "out" "Democrat" soldiers? Man, you are weird.

Frederick Sweet,

Here's some more stats for you.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SHORT CHANGING (which it is) THE INJURED IRAQ WAR VETS. RATHER IT IS ABOUT **NOT COUNTING** THE INJURED IRAQ WAR VETS SO THAT BUSH-CHENEY CAN PRETEND THAT THE IRAQ WAR IS "SUCCESSFUL" RELATIVE TO THE VIETNAM "QUAGMIRE" -- based on the comparative numbers of American soldiers killed -- but not on the numbers INJURED!

In 2004, I wrote a well researched blog "Maimed in Iraq, then mistreated,
neglected, and hidden in America."

Dr Rick Lippin writes :"Does anyone else out there feel like it's ALL unravelling?

It seems everyday that another yet scandal hits the front page?

And the energy of spring is not yet upon us? Hold on friends-ROME REDUX?

---Rick, what you need to do is get one of those books where they show the front page of a major newspaper for the past 100 years. You'll then see how we always think its "unraveling" and how we teeter on the edge just about everyday. Pls no more of this chicken little "sky is falling " thinking please.

war? on terror?

what you mean is the war on honesty and integrity disguised as a

war against ISLAM...

financed by JINSA aka ISRAEL aka PNAC aka Douglas Feith Paul Wolfowitz Perle Cheney and other zionists disguised as

citizens of the United States who are willing to circumvent the democratic process in order to shape history in the form of their past

as they embody NAZI ISM in the 21st Century...

putrid scum.

Mr. Arkin- again you peddle your lies and slander our troops and our government. Bush has raised the money the VA gets every year he's been in office, unlike Bill Clinton, who cut their budget every year. Clinton was too concerned about himself to fix the VA and now the media is blaming Bush. If Clinton had spent his time trying to help our vets this whole Walter Reed "scandal" never would have happened. Also, my sources tell me that the soldiers from the original article in this paper are part of the democrat party trying to undermine MY President. What do you think bin Laden thinks everytime our commander-in-chief is attacked by our media? He is happy. We need to defeat the terrorists and by trying to demoralize our leadership and our brave heroic men fighting the enemies in Iraq, you are acting as an obstacle to victory in our War on Terror.

I am truley sufferring from corruption and incompentcy fatigue.

Does anyone else out there feel like it's ALL unravelling?

It seems everyday that another yet scandal hits the front page?

And the energy of spring is not yet upon us? Hold on friends-ROME REDUX?

Dr. Rick Lippin

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Sen. Clinton and Corporate America
Hillary, Inc.

By RALPH NADER

Just as the Democrats could never seem to get a handle on Ronald Reagan in his sixteen years as Governor of California and President, the Republicans cannot get a handle on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No matter what they tried-and they were admittedly timid-the Democrats could neither upset, mire, or throw Ronald Reagan on the defensive. He smiled, shrugged his shoulders and tefloned his way to victory after victory.

The Republicans are flummoxed when it comes to Senator Clinton. They could not even mount a hardy campaign against her in 2006, leaving a nominal Yonkers mayor the hapless task to take up the space on the ballot opposite her. She walked to victory, spending over $35 million in the process.

The reasons why Republicans cannot score points against Clinton is that she is so much like them on the key corporate power issues. Although she is on the Armed Services Committee, she took President Eisenhower's description of the "military-industrial complex" and repeatedly rubber stamped the massive, bloated, wasteful and corrupt expenditures.

It was not for her to question any redundant weapons systems, no longer strategically needed in the post-Soviet Union era. It was not for her to act on the scores of investigative findings by the Government Accountability Office of the Congress documenting corporate waste, fraud and abuse and do something about them. Let a thousand weapon systems bloom was and is her mantra.

The corporate crime wave of the past seven years, draining and looting trillions of dollars from workers, investors and pension-holders did not catch her industrious attention either. Notwithstanding the publicized enforcement efforts of her state's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, whose popularity took him to a landslide win for the Governorship, she refused to extend his efforts in the U.S. Senate by pushing the regulatory agencies for a necessary crackdown on corporate crime. He gave her the ultimate political cover, by showing the great public support for his "law and order" drives, but she lacked the political fortitude and opted instead for the political cash for her campaigns.

Further contributing to the gigantic government deficit in Washington are the dozens of programs providing subsidies, handouts and bailouts to large corporations known as "corporate welfare." One would think that all that experience in her husband's White House, which she touts routinely, would have predisposed her to championing cutting corporate welfare that now amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in an upward distribution of wealth from the have-littles to the have-lots. No way. Hillary lets the tax revenues and the tax loopholes grow and the windfalls swell the coffers of big business.

By this time the Republicans cannot describe her in the least as "anti-business." Why the junior Senator from New York has done virtually nothing about the business crimes against the poor in her state, especially in the inner city where outrageous interest charges on pay-day loans, predatory lending, redlining, landlord abuses and code violations, lead and asbestos abound. Many of these financial scams benefit Wall Street financiers.

What's left for the Republicans to work on? The Iraq war? Senator Clinton voted for the war resolution and refuses to admit her mistake in so doing. She remains generally a Democratic Hawk on foreign policy.

What about global corporate trade? She is a fervent backer of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA, though she now wants to tweak them with some unenforceable labor and environmental qualifications. The evidence behind the treaties' supplanting our nation's legitimate sovereignty and procedural safeguards through these transnational forms of autocratic, secretive governance, is overwhelming. The evidence that these trade treaties have cost good industrial jobs, driven down efforts to keep living wages, and contributed to the country's huge trade deficits is also decisive.

Yet Senator Clinton follows the Republicans and neuters what could be the latter's criticism of any potential demand for renegotiating these vise-like trade shackles that have led to shipping whole industries to the communist dictatorship in China.

Moreover, she has co-sponsored bills with Republicans and received their public praise, including that of former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich.

The new publication, Politico, headlined recently an article by Jim Vandehei and Carrie Sheffield with the words-"Clinton Presidency May be Inevitable, Republicans say." Former House Majority leader, Tom DeLay, is quoted as saying: "If the conservative movement and Republicans don't understand how massive the Clinton coalition is, she will be the next president." He should know about massive coalitions.

The article also quotes other Republican Party bigwigs in the same vein. None of them offered any strategy. Instead they speak generalities that simply prove the point that Senator Clinton has them neutralized and nullified by the very brazen scope of her political expediency and opportunism.

About all these Republican operatives could offer is that a Hillary presidency would prod and shock conservative foot soldiers into action. Such an attitude means capitulation for 2008.

Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions

Astonishing alignment in all blog posts on this topic of money to this point. They each have something meaningful to contribute.

I'll think of something of substance to contribute later, but have to pause now just to gather up this amazing concentration of sensible thinking.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SHORT CHANGING (which it is) THE INJURED IRAQ WAR VETS. RATHER IT IS ABOUT **NOT COUNTING** THE INJURED IRAQ WAR VETS SO THAT BUSH-CHENEY CAN PRETEND THAT THE IRAQ WAR IS "SUCCESSFUL" RELATIVE TO THE VIETNAM "QUAGMIRE" -- based on the comparative numbers of American soldiers killed -- but not on the numbers INJURED!

In 2004, I wrote a well researched blog "Maimed in Iraq, then mistreated,
neglected, and hidden in America."

http://www.duckdaotsu.org/cominghome_wounded.html

It scooped by three years the Washington Post's recent Walter Reed Hospital scandal.

My conclusion [in 2004 ... THREE years ago] was:
" ... Comparing the war in Iraq with that in Vietnam, the total number of combat troops in Vietnam was 550,000. As many as 155,000 of them were wounded while 10.7% were killed during 10 years. In Iraq, so far, the total number of combat troops total 150,000 and between 11,000 and 22,000 of them have been wounded during nine months. Thus 28.2% of combat troops were wounded in Vietnam while in Iraq "only" 0.3% died in combat, so far, and as many as 14.7% had been wounded in combat.

At first glance, Bush's war in Iraq seems to be much more "successful" than the war in Vietnam -- especially when the number of wounded are eliminated from the equation. The proportion of combat troops killed in Vietnam appears to be 35-times more than in Iraq. By contrast, the proportion of Vietnam wounded is only two-times that sustained in Iraq. That's getting pretty close.

A fairer comparison of casualties in the Vietnam war, lasting ten long years, and Iraq, now less than one year old, should include how long each of the two wars has lasted. While the war in Vietnam has been over for more than three decades, American soldiers in Iraq are still being killed and wounded on a daily basis. The casualty figures in Iraq are still rising -- and there's no end in sight.

Clearly, if Bush's war continues for another two to five years, according to most estimates, the casualty figures from the Vietnam debacle could make it look even more "successful" than Bush's war!

With the specter of the Vietnam quagmire hanging over them, Bush and Rumsfeld can only talk about a "successful" war by emphasizing the relatively low number of Americans killed in Iraq, and hiding the extraordinarily high number of wounded. But for those who had sacrificed their lives and limbs to preemptively protect the U.S. against Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Bush's war has been a complete failure."

The Republican Congress and to a far greater extent the White House have been eager to short change the military at every turn. First they try to reduce death benefits, then they refuse to raise salaries at a rational rate for war time, and recruiting problems. Bonuses are great, but failing to increase base salaries insults your employees, especially when your are stating how they are the best in the world. They should have been getting a minimum 10% a year raises.

halliburton was in on the walter reed contracts. one of its subsidiaries was in charge of maintenance like painting those moldy walls, etc.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.democrats.com/

The DNC's callin' it a video note, my security software is blocking the akamai server the DNC's using so I snagged it from someone kind enuff to upload it to YouTube...

http://www.democrats.com/

Americans don't support their troops, they support their wars.

...And if they don't WANT to support the troops who come home with injuries to body or mind, or to homelessness [ http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5365175 ] perhaps they shouldn't create so many soldiers.

All aspects of the government has been turned into corporate welfare for Defense Contrators and mutinationals like Halliburton. They have taken over the logistics of the military and it is costing the American people a bundle of money. Business is based on the profit motive, and government is not a business. A lady I know had a brother who retired from the Navy and had worked in the Engine Room. He was hired by a private company to do the same work on a Navy ship, but with a raise in salary. Now you are paying his salary, the overhead to run the operation, and perks for company executives. Billions of dollars would be saved by getting private enterprise out of governement. You need to dump Halliburton, Blackwater,and defense contractors like Boeing that are producing missile defense systems that do not work.
We need weapons to fight the war we are fighting now and not the ones designed to fight the Soviet Union.

First:
"Others argue that defense spending as a proportion of the GNP or in relationship to our healthy economy is far below Cold War levels and is scandalously low."

The GNP/GDP is useless.

Every time a forest is cut down or a cancer case is diagnosed the GNP goes up too!

It's *not* a way to measure economic progress, Mr. Arkin.

Second:
A glaring omisson, untrue, or... peer pressure?

You didn't mention that the company which is supposed to be maintaining Walter Reed is a Halliburton subsidiary.

Further, you seem to lack historic backgrounding in the fact that Americans have ALWAYS disposed of their veterans after wars, and that probably won't change unless American narccicism disappears:

Here's a little oral history.

Travus T. Hipp, Korean war vet, on his days as a kid hanging out at the Presidio, San Francisco, watching the wounded WWII vets fishing for their food with donated bait and line.

[March 05 2007] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: It's YOUR Fault - My Experience Hangin' Out At The Presidio In San Francisco At The End Of WWII Showed Me Why We Need A Functional Veterans Administration... And I'm Still Waiting

http://www.archive.org/details/tth_070308

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1813.shtml

Decadence, waste, corruption in the new American Empire [Part I]

By Rodrigue Tremblay
Online Journal Guest Writer

"An empire is always coercive and autocratic: It is like a cover that presses on a boiling cauldron. At a certain point, the internal pressure is too strong, the cover is blown off and there is a sort of volcanic eruption." --Umberto Eco, Italian medievalist

"An empire is a despotism, and an emperor is a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy." --John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd American President

"The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded." --Montesquieu (1689-1755), Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

A sure sign of decadence in an empire is when hard earned money seems to lose any meaning and is wasted left and right. There are instances that indicate that is what is happening in the United States today. There is a dance of the billions that defies imagination and that nobody seems to understand.

First case in point: In 2006, investment banker and securities firm Goldman Sachs paid out a whopping $16.5 billion in year-end bonuses to its executives and employees. That sort of cash, if it were to be transported in boxes of 100-dollar bills would require about 50 10-ton truckloads. This came out to a Christmas gift of $625,000 for each man and woman in that organization, whose main production is to shift papers around. Last year, the firm paid its two co-presidents $53 million each in salary, bonuses and benefits. Do you think there is a link between exorbitant private profits and political power? Well, you may want to ask yourself why Bush nominated a former chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs as Treasury Secretary and chose a lawyer from Goldman Sachs as his chief of staff.

Case two where money is flowing freely is the Pentagon. The military budget of the United States government for 2007 piles up to the huge amount of $623 billion. That is more than $2,000 for each American man, woman and child. As the 9/11 Commission Report pointed out, "The Department of Defense is the behemoth . . . With an annual budget larger than the gross domestic product of Russia, it is an empire." The real New American Empireis the U.S. Department of Defense. Its annual budget represents more than 50 percent of the military expenditures of all the 191 other countries in the world bundled together. It is an empire that spreads its tentacles in 135 countries,with troops in every single one of them, and which has deployed the unbelievable number of 737 military bases in these foreign lands. This is really an empire out of control that has become an increasing threat to the world.

Obtaining defense contracts is a sure way to quick riches. For example, a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has concluded that the highest proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary and Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm. As to links between defense contracts and political power, you may want to ask yourself why Bush nominated the president of a major arms supplier to the post of under secretary of the Navy.

With so much money floating around, it is no wonder that a congressional committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, recently discovered that about 36 10-ton truckloads of newly printed $100 bills disappeared in Iraq (363 tons of cash at a value of some $12 billion at the last count) and were unaccounted for. They are in somebody's pockets, but Congress still does not know whose pockets, not being able to follow the meandering maze of fraud, waste, abuse and corruption that is taking place in the Iraq war.

It is reasonable to think that some of this cash served to buy the famous December 15, 2005, Iraqi elections heralded by the Bush-Cheney regime as a model of democracy for the Middle East. If the $12 billion unaccounted for had been spread equally among 12 million eligible Iraqi voters, each one of them in that impoverished country would have received $1,000 in freshly minted $100 dollar bills. We have to remember that the December 15, 2005, election handed over power, until 2009, to a coalition of fanatical fundamentalist and theocratic Shiite parties backed by Iran, and led by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

Of course, the first and greatest cost of the Iraq War is the human cost and the destruction of a country by immoral foreign invaders. But the money corruption comes a close second.

In peaceful times, corruption is a constant menace in a democracy. In times of war, if no special steps are taken, it becomes endemic. And under the Bush-Cheney regime, no such steps were taken to avoid corruption. To the contrary, it would appear that such corruption was welcome, possibly in the knowledge or hope that some of the money floating around would find its way back into the political system. That is why money corruption poses a deadly threat to the American democracy.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), for one, feared the U.S. Constitution would in time "fail . . . because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense." For his part, President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) thought that corruption in high places would follow as "all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

The question that remains to be answered is whether the American democracy can be saved from the ambient corruption, or whether it is already too late. Indeed, has the United States fallen into a chasm of corruption so deep that it cannot recover from it?

[To be continued next week.]
Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book 'The New American Empire'"". Visit his blog site at thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1818.shtml

Two FBI whistleblowers confirm illegal wiretapping of government officials and misuse of FISA

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Mar 6, 2007, 01:39

State secrets privilege was used to cover up corruption and silence whistleblowers

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) has obtained a copy of an official complaint filed by a veteran FBI Special Agent, Gilbert Graham, with the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG). SA Graham's protected disclosures report the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in conducting electronic surveillance of high-profile U.S. public officials.

Before his retirement in 2002, SA Gilbert Graham worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) Squad NS-24. One of the main areas of Mr. Graham's counterintelligence investigations involved espionage activities by Turkish officials and agents in the United States. On April 2, 2002, Graham filed with the DOJ-OIG a classified protected disclosure, which provided a detailed account of FISA violations involving misuse of FISA warrants to engage in domestic surveillance.

In his unclassified report SA Graham states: "It is the complainant's reasonable belief that the request for ELSUR [electronic surveillance] coverage was a subterfuge to collect evidentiary information concerning public corruption matters." Graham blew the whistle on this illegal behavior, but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General's office.

Click here to read the unclassified version of SA Graham's Official Report.

The report filed by SA Graham bolsters another FBI whistleblower's case that became public several months after Graham's official filing with the Justice Department in 2002. Sibel Edmonds, former FBI language specialist, also worked for the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO), and her assignments included the translations of Turkish Counterintelligence documents and audiotapes, some of which were part of espionage investigations led by SA Graham. After she filed her complaint with the DOJ-OIG and Congress, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Court proceedings in Edmonds' case were blocked by the assertion of the state secrets privilege by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Congress gagged and prevented from investigating her case through retroactive re-classification of documents by DOJ. To read the timeline on Edmonds' case Click here.

Edmonds' complaint included allegations of illegal activities by Turkish organizations and their agents in the United States, and the involvement of certain elected and appointed U.S. officials in the Department of State, Pentagon, and the U.S. Congress in these activities.

In its September 2005 issue, Vanity Fair ran a comprehensive piece on Edmonds' case by reporter David Rose, in which several former and current congressional and Justice Department officials identified former House Speaker Dennis Hastert as being involved in illegal activities with the Turkish organizations and personnel targeted in FBI investigations. In addition, Rose reported: " . . . much of what Edmonds reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal activity. There was talk, she told investigators, of laundering the profits of large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military technologies to the highest bidder."

In January 2005, DOJ-OIG released an unclassified summary of its investigation into Edmonds' termination. The report concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported by convincing evidence.

Another former veteran FBI counterintelligence and espionage specialist at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, also filed similar reports with DOJ-OIG and several congressional offices regarding violations of FISA implementation and the covering up of several espionage cases involving FBI language specialists and public corruption cases by the Bureau. The cases reported by this whistleblower corroborate those reported by SA Graham and Sibel Edmonds.

In an interview with NSWBC investigators the former FBI specialist, who wished to remain anonymous, stated: " . . . you are looking at covering up massive public corruption and espionage cases; to top that off you have major violations of FISA by the FBI Washington Field Office and HQ targeting these cases. Everyone involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the state secrets privilege in Edmonds' case."

William Weaver, NSWBC senior advisor, noted, "These abuses of power are precisely why we must pay attention to whistleblowers. Preservation of the balance of powers between the branches of government increasingly relies on information provided by whistleblowers, especially in the face of aggressive and expanding executive power. Through illegal surveillance, members of Congress and other officials may be controlled by the executive branch, thereby dissolving the matrix of our democracy. The abuse of two powers of secrecy, FISA and the state secrets privilege, are working hand in hand to subvert the Constitution. In an abominably perverse arrangement, the abuse of FISA is being covered up by abuse of the state secrets privilege. Only whistleblowers and the congressional and judicial oversight their revelations spawn can bring our system back into balance."

Several civil liberties and whistleblowers organizations have joined Edmonds and NSWBC in urging Congress to hold public hearing on Edmonds' case, including the supporting cases of SA Graham and other FBI witnesses, and the erroneous use of state secrets privilege by the executive branch to cover up its own illegal conduct. The petition endorsed by these groups is expected to be released to public in the next few days.

New York times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/opinion/08thu1.html?th&emc=th

Editorial
The Gonzales Eight

Published: March 8, 2007
Americans often suspect that their political leaders are arrogant and out of touch. But even then it is nearly impossible to fathom what self-delusion could have convinced Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico that he had a right to call a federal prosecutor at home and question him about a politically sensitive investigation.

That disturbing tale is one of several revealed this week in Congressional hearings called to look into the firing of eight United States attorneys. The hearings left little doubt that the Bush administration had all eight -- an unprecedented number -- ousted for political reasons. But it points to even wider abuse; prosecutors suggest that three Republican members of Congress may have tried to pressure the attorneys into doing their political bidding.

It already seemed clear that the Bush administration's purge had trampled on prosecutorial independence. Now Congress and the Justice Department need to investigate possible ethics violations, and perhaps illegality. Two of the fired prosecutors testified that they had been dismissed after resisting what they suspected were importunings to use their offices to help Republicans win elections. A third described what may have been a threat of retaliation if he talked publicly about his firing.

David Iglesias, who was removed as the United States attorney in Albuquerque, said that he was first contacted before last fall's election by Representative Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico. Ms. Wilson, who was in a tough re-election fight, asked about sealed indictments -- criminal charges that are not public.

Two weeks later, he said, he got a call from Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, asking whether he intended to indict Democrats before the election in a high-profile corruption case. When Mr. Iglesias said no, he said, Mr. Domenici replied that he was very sorry to hear it, and the line went dead. Mr. Iglesias said he'd felt "sick." Within six weeks, he was fired. Ms. Wilson and Mr. Domenici both deny that they had tried to exert pressure.

John McKay of Seattle testified that the chief of staff for Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington, called to ask whether he intended to investigate the 2004 governor's race, which a Democrat won after two recounts. Mr. McKay says that when he went to the White House later to discuss a possible judicial nomination (which he did not get), he was told of concerns about how he'd handled the election. H. E. Cummins, a fired prosecutor from Arkansas, said that a Justice Department official, in what appeared to be a warning, said that if he kept talking about his firing, the department would release negative information about him.

Congress must keep demanding answers. It must find out who decided to fire these prosecutors and why, and who may have authorized putting pressure on Mr. Cummins. And it must look into whether Senator Domenici and Representatives Wilson and Hastings violated ethics rules that forbid this sort of interference. We hope the House committee will not be deterred by the fact that Mr. Hastings is its ranking Republican. The Justice Department also needs to open its own investigation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's claim that these prosecutors were fired for poor performance was always difficult to believe. Now it's impossible.