Wednesday, June 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri claims
"foreign interference" and a conspiracy, Bradley Manning's attorney
states they are not getting the evidence needed (or required by law),
Brett McGurk makes on outlandish statement to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, the Committee doesn't even bat an eye.
"Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to consider the
President's nominees to serve as ambassadors to the following countries:
Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Tajikistan," explained Senator Bob
Casey this morning. Casey was acting Committee Chair for the hearing.
Susan Marsh Elliott has been nominated for the Tajikistan post and
Jeanne Sison's for the Srik Lanka and Maldives posts. They are not our
focus. Brett McGurk is nominated to be the US Ambassador to Iraq and
that is our focus. For those late to the party who may have checked out
on Iraq sometime ago, Casey offered a strong overview.
Chair Bob Casey: In Iraq, of course, the picture is mixed. Nearly
six months after the redeployment of US troops from the country, we know
that political and ethnic divisions remain sharp as Iraq recovers from
years and years of war. The current government took months to establish
in 2010. And a high degree of mistrust still exists among key
political factions. Iraqis and Americans have sacrificed greatly,
mightily to support the Democratic process in Iraq. At this point in
time, we should continue to support the political reconciliation among
key players in the country as they work to further deepen the Democratic
process. This unsettled political environment exists within a very
precarious
security situation where extremist groups are still capable of an
have launched significant attacks in the country. Just last week, six
bomb blasts across Baghdad killed at least 17 people -- mostly in Shia
neighborhoods. On Monday, a suicide bomber killed at least 26 people in
Baghdad and wounded more than 190 in an attack on the government run --
the government run body that manages Shi'ite religious and cultural
sites.
Why did we have the hearing? He's "eminently capable" of doing the job,
Casey rushed to assure in his opening remarks. Then why are you
wasting tax payer money? Why waste our money holding a hearing when
you've already decreed the nominee "eminently capable"? Not to mention
wasting everyone's time?
It was a garbage hearing. Trash. That's all it was. I could ridicule
Casey but instead will just note that aside from refusing to question
the witness seriously, he did an okay job filling in for Kerry. Only
okay? When the opposite side has time left and wants just a minute
more, no words should be required. Just wavie them through. This is
the Senate. Especially when it's the other side because it's so easy to
look petty when interacting with the other side. His strengths? He's a
very religious person and follows religious news so he brings a
perspective to foreign relations that's often unique. He will -- and
did in this hearing -- know certain details of foreign violence that the
mainstream press has ignored. I wish he'd bothered to hold a hard
hitting hearing. I wish he'd asked how have we arrived at Barack
Obama's third nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq in four years?
The refusal to ask that sort of question goes a long way towards
explaining how the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has failed
repeatedly in the last four years when it came to vetting nominees.
In his opening remarks, Brett McGurk began with his time in Iraq back in
2004 with John Negroponte. Listening to him list his part in one
Iraqi failure after another, it was difficult not to remember Peter Van Buren's observations last March:
McGurk is 38 years old and has never done any job other than help
fuck up Iraq on behalf of the United States. Dude only graduated in
1999. Despite essentially doing nothing but Iraq stuff his entire adult
life, McGurk has also avoided learning any Arabic. You'd kind of think
that maybe that wouldn't be the resume for the next guy in charge of
cleaning up some of his own mistakes, like maybe you'd want someone who
had some… depth or experience or broad knowledge or understanding of
something other than failure in that God-forsaken country. Normally when
you are a hand maiden to failure you don't get promoted, but then
again, this is the State Department. This is almost as good as Harriet
Miers.
We'll note McGurk's claims of what he will do if confirmed.
Brett McGurk: In the defense and security area, if confirmed, I look
forward to working with our Office of Security Cooperation and CENTCOM
to ensure that we are doing everything possible to deepen our
military-defense partnership in Iraq. In the diplomatic area, if
confirmed, I look forward to working with our ambassadors in regional
capitols -- most of whom I've worked with and admired for many years --
to ensure close coordination of US policies in Iraq and throughout the
region. In the political area, Iraq is scheduled to hold elections --
provincial elections in 2013 and national [he means parliamenatry]
elections in 2014. If confirmed, it will be a central focus of our
mission to work in coordination with the UN to ensure that these
elections are held freely and on time. Energy and economics are now
among the foremost priorities. If confirmed it will be among my highest
priorities to connect US businesses with emerging opportunities in
Iraq and to refocus Iraqi leaders on the urgent necessity of
diversifying their economy and grappling with national hydrocarbons
legislation. As the US pursues its interest in Iraq, we must never lose
sight of our values including promotion of human rights, women and
protection of vulnerable minorities. This is an ambitious agenda but it
should nor require an unsustainable resource base. If confirmed, I
pledge to work with the Congress to establish a democratic presence in
Iraq. That is secure, strategic, effective and sustainable.
Back to the questioning.
Chair Bob Casey: I wanted to ask you about leadership which is a
central concern in any confirmation process but maybe especially so for
the position that you've been nominated for. There will be those who
say -- and I want to have you respond to this -- you have based upon
your record, broad experience in Iraq. several time periods in which
you've served as you've been called back for services under, as I
indicated, two administrations. But they will also say that you haven't
had the leadership position that would lend itself to to the kind of
substantial experience that will prepare yourself for such a position.
And I want you to answer that question because I think it's an important
one in terms of demonstrating in this confirmation process, your
ability to lead not just an embassy but an embassy and a mission of this
size and consequence.
Brett McGurk: Thank you, Senator and thank you for allowing me to
address that. I'd like to do that in three ways. First, leadership of
the embassy starts at home: At the embassy. As you noted in your
opening statements, I've served with all five of our prior ambassadors
to Iraq and I've seen every permentation of the embassy from the very
beginning to where it is today. Throughout that, uh, process, I have
learned and seen and been involved with what it takes to lead in Iraq.
And to lead in Iraq, you need a really fingertip understanding of the
operational tempo in Iraq, of what it's like day-to-day, of knowing when
something is a crisis and when it's not, managing morale and keeping
people focused on the goals. It also takes a team. And if I'm
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I'd be inheriting a team of
extraordinary talent and depth at the embassy. I've been fortunate to
have worked with every member of the country team in Iraq. Uh, one of
whom happens to be sitting to my left, Ambassador Sissen. That
team encorporates individuals from across the government, just a whole
government approach from Commerce to Transportation to Treasury to State
to the Defense Community to the Intelligence Community. I've been
gratified to learn that key members of that team have volunteered to
stay on for another year and, if I'm confirmed, would serve with me. As
Ambassador, the buck would stop with me. And as I think I said in the
opening statement, I have a very clear visison -- in coordination with
the President and the Secretary -- of where we need to take this
mission. But I would be working with a very strong team.
He then goes on to list various people he's worked with. However, the
question was about his ability to supervise and the answer was about
everything but supervision. Near the end of all that he says "finally"
and begins talking about "my relationship with the Iraqi people." He
stated he was called back "over the years due to my unique relationship
with the Iraqis. I have worked with these indiviuals since I first got
to Iraq in January 2004."
Iraq's changed a bit since then. And is McGurk able to see them for who
they are now? More importantly, is an occupation agent -- which is
what McGurk would have been seen as -- really the one to make the
diplomatic face for the US in Iraq?
No one asked that important question.
Brett McGurk: Leadership also in this context, you have to look at
inter-agency experience because you're looking at a whole government
approach. As a senior director for President Bush in the NSC
particularly at one of the most intense periods of the war from the
time of planning and implementing the surge and through the end of his
administration. I was at point for organizing a whole of government
effort for implement the surge.
That's where he should have been asked about his failure.
Forget your take on the surge and just look at what happened. (Some are
pro-surge, some are anti- -- set that aside.) We know what Gen David
Petraeus did. He was the top US commander in Iraq. He receives much
praise for the surge.
Bush ordered the surge. Petraeus executed it. That's not me saying,
"Don't give Petreaus any praise!" That's noting what Petraeus' role
was. I don't believe the surge did anything lasting. I don't believe
it resulted in success. That's not my criticism of Petraeus. Petraeus
was ordered to execute it and did. His efforts are his efforts and
though I'm anti-surge I see nothing to fault him on with regards to the
execution of it. He did what he was ordered to do with the surge and
did it excellently.
2007 wasn't that long ago for some people. For others it was a lifetime
ago or even, if you're young enough, pre-history. So let's go back and
explain what was going on. In the November 2006 mid-terms, the
Democrats campaign of "give us one house of Congress and we'll end the
war" resulted in their winning control of the House of Representatives
and the Senate. This alarmed the White House (among the reasons Donald
Rumsfeld was replaced as Secretary of Defense). Not surprising,
Republicans are usually alarmed by Democrats and vice versa. So you had
Bush occupying the White House and fearful that the Democrats were
going to keep their campaign promise. What a naive Bully Boy Bush.
But Democrats were saying that the same thing was being done over and
over. US House Rep Gary Ackerman (who truly was against the Iraq War)
was among those making that statement. And they wanted to know why more
money needed to be spent. There was no progress. The White House came
up with benchmarks in early 2007 (and Nouri al-Maliki signed off on
them as Iraq's prime minister). Iraq would meet these benchmarks and
that would be progress! They never did. And Democrats in Congress
stopped caring as soon as Barack Obama was sworn in. Doubt it? US
House Rep Lloyd Doggett, when's the last time you expressed public
concern over the amount of money going to Iraq with the benchmarks not
being met? 2008 when Bush was in the White House.
In Iraq in 2007, the ethnic cleansing from the year before was
continuing. Shi'ites were purging Sunnis, Sunnis were purging
Shi'ites. It was more Shi'ites than Sunnis and that's true not only
because there were more Shi'ites in the country but also because Sunnis
made up a huge portion of the refugee population created in this time
period. Iraq was spinning out of control. In addition to the
benchmarks, in January 2007, Bush proposed the surge. Here he is explaining it (January 10, 2007) to the American people:
The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that
these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained
Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer
American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -
particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had
made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal
danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded
with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden
Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia
population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements,
some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a
vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it
is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They
have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been
made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my
national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a
comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both
parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We
benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a
bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and
former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that
there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came
through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the
United States.
[. . .]
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons:
There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods
that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too
many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders
reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.
They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Now, let me explain the main elements of this effort. The Iraqi
government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders
for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi army and
national police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these
forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi army and national
police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These
Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting
patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the
trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders
say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy
to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian
violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require
increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000
additional American troops to Iraq.
[. . .]
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide
bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make
every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with
images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see
Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and
growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this
happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their
leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to
make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia
want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad
will help make reconciliation possible.
An even shorter version of the speech can be summed up as:
Americans are weary of the war. Iraq needs to show progress. To
give the politicians "the breathing space" to move forward, we are
sending more US soldiers into Iraq to address the security situation.
Brett McGurk bragged about his role overseeing the surge to the Senate
committee which was either too stupid or too cowed to point out the
obvious: "Brett McGurk, you, sir, are no David Petraeus."
Petraeus' role is very clear. And he executed the surge and did so in a
manner that should have resulted in an excellent rating for him. For
Petraeus.
And that's the only part of the surge that can be rated as "successful."
The surge was a failure. Not a military failure. Petraeus and those
following his orders did their job very well. But the surge wasn't just
about more military on the ground. That was the military aspect. The
political aspect -- which McGurk was supposed to be working on -- was
passing the hydrocarbons law, achieving reconciliation among Iraqis (end
of the anti-Ba'athism implemented under Paul Bremer), etc. That was a
failure.
None of it happened. And not only did it not happen under the surge,
Nouri's just appointed new members to the Justice and Accountability
Commission -- that's de-Ba'athification commission. That was supposed
to be done away with during the surge. None of it happened.
That's basic and many people can say that straight forward. ( An idiot couldn't say it straight forward to Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News.
Think I mean Sarah Palin? No, the first stammering can't answer the
question interview was with Barack.) The US military did their part.
That's all that happened. And it wasn't Petraeus job to get the
political ball moving. That was the job of people like Brett McGurk.
It's amazing that he wants to claim credit for basically being the point
person on the surge when the only part that succeeded succeeded because
of Gen Petraeus and those service members under him. McGurk had
nothing to do with that. Talk about a glory hog.
And how shameful that the Committee let that pass. The whoring for this
administration out of Congress is becoming a national embarrassment.
You either start working for the country or start campaigning under a
street lamp -- preferably a red street lamp. If you're tired of
whoring how about you start addressing the needs of the United States?
If the US needs an ambassador to Iraq, then they need a qualified one.
Your refusal to ask hard questions did not make it appear that you were
the least bit interested in McGurk's qualifications or, more to the
point, his lack of them.
And don't for a moment think that the Republicans did a better job.
Senator James Risch began his lecture praising McGurk's "expertise" and
saying no one could question it. Really? There are a lot of people
questioning just that? His experience is non-stop failure.
To Ranking Member Richard Lugar, McGurk would assert, "Quite frankly,
our presence is too large." This moments after stating he was involved
in every bit of planning and discussions for the drawndown.
The American presence is too large in Baghdad post drawdown?
Well, I guess after two years, you can judge that . . . What's that?
It hasn't been two years? That's right. It wasn't even six months
before Tim Arango began reporting (" U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police") the State Dept was exploring scaling back the presence -- and he was wrongly slammed for that reporting by the State Dept.
If I was involved in every bit of planning for the post-drawndown phase
and, less than six months later, the Department was belatedly realizing
the planning had all been wrong, I would expect people to question me
on that. I certainly wouldn't think I could get away with citing my
involvement in poor planning as a plus and reason to consider me for a
post as ambassador.
But the Senators didn't object, didn't question. When Tim Arango was
reporting on this consdieration, he was noting that over $50 million had
already been spent on his program in Iraq since the start of the year.
It's a damn shame that the US Senators weren't at all concerned about
that wasted money. They had a witness before them bragging about all
he'd done in the planning and the planning is a failure. You'd think
the gas bags would have had a question or two.
Brett McGurk: In my last assignments in Iraq, I participated in
almost every internal conversation -- both inter-agency and in Baghdad
-- about how not only to plan the transition after our troops were
withdrawing but also uhm, uh-uh, how to get the size down. Uh, quite
frankly, our presence in Iraq right now, uh, is too large.
Welcome to our Zombie Senate. Here you will find glassy-eyed senators
who stumble through a few words but mainly stare off into space as a
witness self-incriminates.
I myself could care less what two adults agree to do, married or not, but State has disciplined
its own Foreign Service Officers for extra marital affairs, and
cautions against using official email for too-personal correspondence.
Always want to keep an eye on double-standards so they don't negatively
influence morale among the troops.
I do care what McGurk did. He concealed the relationship from Ryan
Crocker who was his superior and the US Ambassador to Iraq. When I
objected yesterday I didn't see how someone who did that could then be
US Ambassador to Iraq. I was unaware that McGurk was married (he got
married in 2006). As Peter Van Buren notes, that is considered a
no-no. So he didn't just waste time in a war zone pursuing a bootie
call, he also did so while married.
There are two comments currently at Van Buren's post. I agree with both
of them but I want to echo the second one. The State Dept has gone
after Peter. They have targeted him for being a whistle blower. But
they think the best the US can offer for a post as ambassador is someone
who violated their own policies in 2008 while in Iraq. (That's not the
only time in Iraq that McGurk violated the policies. Had I known he
was married yesterday I wouldn't have stated that he had many affairs
while in Iraq. But I've already stated that so we will note, pursuit of
affairs was not limited to Gina Chon.) And they know this. And yet
they want to go after Peter?
The State Dept should take their little comedy act on the road.
Maybe USA Today's Jim Michaels
could be their opening act? "Six months after the last U.S. combat
troops left, an Iraq free of Saddam Hussein and overseen by a
democratically elected government midwifed by the United States is
standing on its own despite ever-present dangers from within and outside
its borders." Good for Michaels for not falling into the press trap of
claiming all US troops left. You still have some acting to guard the
embassy and consulates, you still have special ops and you still have
others. And it does matter to those whose loved ones are the ones still
stationed in Iraq (that's not even counting the ones stationed around
it). So good for him there.
But democratically elected government?
If you say the "government of Iraq" to most people in the US, their
image is Nouri al-Maliki. He wasn't democratically elected. His
political slate (State of Law) came in second to Iraqiya (headed by Ayad
Allawi). Nouri's only prime minister today because he pouted and threw
a temper tantrum for eight months (Political Stalemate I) and had the
White House and Iranian government in Tehran both backing him. The US
pushed through the Erbil Agreement. That's what gave him a second
term. And when he got what he wanted from the agreement that he signed
off on, he refused to follow the Erbil Agreement, he refused to honor
the concessions he had promised and put into writing. And that is the
ongoing Political Stalemate II, generally refered to as "the political
crisis."
The political crisis has led to a call for
Al Mada notes that 176 signatures have been collected to call for a vote of no-confidence. The Media Line observes,
"That leaves Maliki with a motley assortment of backers: his own State
of Law coalition, which commands less than a third of the seats in
parliament; Tehran; and Washington. Yet, followers of Iraq's murky and
ever-shifting politics say, Maliki isn't a goner yet." Of course not,
it's never easy to get rid of cockroaches, Wile E. Coyote or rodents. Al Mada notes State
of Law continues to insist that the White House won't allow Nouri to be
removed from his post and that US Vice President Joe Biden will be
visiting soon.
That a visit from Joe Biden is seen as the saving grace for Nouri goes
to how estranged the White House is from the longterm US allies in the
KRG. Nouri al-Maliki used to hate Senator Joe. Couldn't stand him.
Because Joe was among those telling the truth publicly that Nouri was
nothing but a petty thug.
Now the KRG feels they can't trust the White House (they're right) and
Thug Nouri feels he can. You have to wonder what and who the
administration won't sell out before Barack leaves the White House?
Al Mada reports
that the Sadr bloc states that they are under intense pressure from
Iran's Shi'ite government to back down in the call for a no confidence
vote against Nouri (Shi'ite). As AFP noted
this afternoon, Nouri's response was to declare that "foreign
influence" was behind Iraq's problems. As usual, he tossed around terms
like "conspiracy" and played the persecuted drama queen.
You don't have to ignore sectarian conflict and you shouldn't. The
truth is the truth. But you also shouldn't mischaracterize to pimp the
lie of sectarian conflict among government officisls. There is unity in
the government against Nouir.
Alsumaria notes
that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani went ahead and forwarded the
signatures forthe no-confidence vote and that Talabani is insisting that
he didn't sign on himself.
If Nouri wanted to stop a vote, all he would have to do -- Moqtada has
stated this publicly -- is implement the Erbil Agreement he agreed to in
November 2010. He's refused to. All this time. And he's harmed Iraq
in the process. There are no heads of the security ministries because
Nouri's refused to nominate any. Grasp that. Grasp there is no
Minister of Defense. Because of Nouri. Violence is up in Iraq and
this comes and that hasn't forced Nouri to nominate. His 'antics' have
hurt Iraq in the international business community as well. Daniel J. Graeber (OilPrice.com) observed last night:
On Monday, a suicide bomber in Iraq detonated
his car bomb outside the Baghdad offices of a government-backed Shiite
group, leaving at least 190 people wounded and 26 people dead. The
attack was said to bear the hallmarks of al-Qaida, suggesting sectarian
warfare is far from over in Iraq. The attack comes as Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki faces enduring challenges to his
administration. That's hardly the investment climate envisioned for a
post-Saddam Iraq. As if to emphasize that point, international oil
companies showed little interest in Iraq's latest oil and natural gas
auction.
Turning to the US. When Michael Ratner isn't in the courtroom for the
Bradley Manning pre-court martial hearings, you can count on him to
Retweet coverage from people who were.
Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st. Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported
in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of
violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his
personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized
software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight
counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified
information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges
including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could
result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took
place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32
hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be
moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea
and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.
Dominating the first of what is expected to be a three-day pre-trial
hearing was Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, arguing that the
prosecution is withholding key materials needed to build a solid
defense.
On the other side of the aisle, Army Maj. Ashden Fein, the lead
prosecutor, called the defense's 'unreasonable' request for documents,
many of which he said were irrelevant to the case, a ploy to slow down
the proceedings. He insisted, however, that the government is going
"above and beyond" its legal obligations and is turning over the
materials as quickly as possible.
CNN reports,
"Among the charges requested to be dropped against Manning are eight
specifications of unauthorized transmission under the Espionage Act and
two charges of exceeding authorized access, according to a Military
District of Washington legal spokesman who is not authorized to use his
name." David Usborne (Indpendent) notes
"Bradley, Not seen since his last hearing in April, Pte Manning looked
thin and fragile seated between members of his defence team inside the
military courtroom at the base, which is about 30 minutes north of
Washington DC. He has been in custody since his arrest in May 2010 on
suspicion of passing diplomatic cables and military logs from
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the anti-secrecy website founded
by Julian Assange."
US Senator Patty Murray Chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:
VETERANS: Murray,
Kohl, Tester, Wyden Call on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
Investigate Companies Marketing Inappropriate Financial Products and
Services to Veterans
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Wednesday, June 6
Senators: Companies are taking advantage of elderly veterans and their family members
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S.
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee joined with Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI), Jon Tester (D-MT), and
Ron Wyden (D-OR) in calling on Director Richard Cordray of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, to investigate and take enforcement action
against companies that may be inappropriately marketing and selling
financial services and products to elderly veterans. They also called
upon Director Cordray to alert veterans to the practices of companies
that are taking advantage of elderly veterans.
"We believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
and specifically the Office for
Older Americans and the Office of Servicemember Affairs are in a unique
position to assist us in educating elderly veterans and family members
and stopping improper practices that may be occurring," the Senators
write in
the letter. "For this reason, we
request that you investigate these practices to determine the
feasibility of enforcement actions within CFPB's authority. We also
request that you assist us in gathering information related to these
companies and practices and the
impact they are having on our nation's veterans. Finally, we ask
that you work with us to better
educate veterans, their families and veteran advocates about VA's
pension program and the practices of certain companies."
The full text of the letter follows:
June 6, 2012
The Honorable Richard Cordray
Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1801 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Cordray:
For many elderly veterans and their families, understanding, planning,
and paying for long-term care has become a tremendous challenge.
The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) pension program, which
provides monthly benefits to eligible low-income wartime veterans and
their
surviving spouses, can help in meeting basic financial needs. Pension recipients
may also be eligible for additional aid if they require assistance with
activities of daily living. For eligible veterans and survivors, these
benefits may allow them to receive necessary quality care in their own homes, assisted living facilities or nursing homes.
Over
the past several months, our offices have received a number of
complaints from veterans and their family members about companies
that
may be inappropriately marketing and selling financial services and
products to elderly veterans. We are deeply troubled because such
practices may adversely impact eligibility for both VA and other Federal
benefits, such as Medicaid. Often these financial services and products
may involve substantial fees and may not be properly suited for elderly
veterans. Further, some of these companies fail to offer accurate
advice
on other available benefits, often to the detriment of the veteran
or survivor.
We
have also encountered companies that grant veterans deferred payments
on assisted living facility costs for either a certain time period or
until receipt of VA pension benefits. However, because of the method by
which VA computes pension eligibility, such practices may in fact
negatively
impact a veteran's eligibility for pension benefits. The Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs has provided assistance to a number of
veterans who found themselves facing eviction from assisted living
facilities at the end of the deferral period because VA had not
completed adjudication of their claim or they were ultimately found ineligible for pension benefits.
We believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
and specifically the Office for Older
Americans and the Office of Servicemember Affairs are in a unique
position to assist us in educating elderly veterans and family members
and stopping improper practices
that may be occurring. For this reason, we request that you investigate these practices to determine the feasibility of enforcement actions
within CFPB's authority. We also request that you assist us in gathering information related to these companies and practices and the impact
they are having on our nation's veterans. Finally, we ask that you work
with us
to better educate veterans, their families and veteran advocates about
VA's pension program and the practices of certain companies.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
the Special Committee on Aging will continue to review these issues and
work to ensure eligible veterans
and survivors receive the benefits
they have earned. We appreciate your attention to this request and look
forward to your participation in serving
our veterans and their families.
###
| 
Alexa O'Brien 
