Veterans Administration official out over vet deaths scandal

(Fox News) – The Obama administration, battling to tamp down yet another scandal, announced the resignation Friday afternoon of a top Veterans Affairs official amid mounting questions over patient deaths possibly tied to delayed care.

But as with prior controversies, the administration’s response, critics say, is not nearly aggressive enough. The official said to be resigning already was planning to retire. And once again, the president is being accused of relying on political allies to lead internal reviews, without directly firing anyone.

The department initially placed a few officials on leave after reports emerged that up to 40 patients died waiting for care at a Phoenix facility. On Friday, as pressure mounted, the administration announced the resignation of the top VA health official, Under Secretary for Health Robert Petzel — a day after that official testified alongside VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.

“I am committed to strengthening veterans’ trust and confidence in their VA healthcare system,” Shinseki said in a statement.

But Petzel, according to a VA press release last year, already was planning to retire in 2014 — and Obama already had nominated a successor days earlier.

Republicans swiftly cast the response as yet another example of how the administration is light-handed in its response to severe allegations. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in response to the “resignation” that it’s time for a full-fledged probe.

“Despite the White House’s attempts to hide behind talking points and an investigation being led by a political insider, this is more proof that there are a lot of unanswered questions and an independent investigation is necessary,” he said in a statement.

The same thing happened after the scandal over IRS targeting of political groups broke. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller resigned, but a source said he was planning to leave the post anyway.

The pattern is fueling frustration that, on several fronts, the administration has been able to deflect accusations of wrongdoing, often turning the outrage back on lawmakers and accusing them of playing political games.

Congress, and the public, have shown patience wearing thin.

Recent calls for an independent investigation on the VA scandal reflect doubts that the VA and a White House official tapped to handle a review can be objective.

The House also recently established a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terror attacks. And Republicans have called for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS targeting.

Recent Fox News polling shows trust in the federal government at a meager 37 percent. And on specific scandals, most consider the recent controversies to be serious.

According to one Fox News poll, 78 percent of those surveyed considered Benghazi serious, with 52 percent saying they consider it very serious. The numbers were slightly lower when people were asked about the IRS scandal.

A separate poll also showed 54 percent of voters think the administration has been deceitful about the events surrounding Benghazi.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., who has called for Shinseki’s resignation, said Friday that Petzel’s departure is “not a surprise” since he was scheduled to retire, and suggested it was not enough.

“He should not shoulder the blame for VA’s failures,” Moran said. “Rather than the VA focusing on damage control, action should be taken immediately to change the bureaucratic culture of mediocrity at the VA and ensure the highest quality and most timely care for our nation’s heroes.”

A senior VA official explained to Fox News that Petzel was supposed to serve in his position until the Senate confirms his successor, a process that could drag on for months.

The official said Shinseki “requested and received” Petzel’s resignation after he listened to hours of testimony on Thursday from watchdog and veteran groups.

[H/T FoxNews]

[Video] Lois Lerner: Speaks at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy in 2010, ‘Everyone is Up In Arms Because They Don’t Like It’

Brietbart reports: Newly uncovered video shows Lois Lerner discussing the political pressure that swirled around the IRS in 2010. Lerner says “everyone” was “screaming at” the IRS to stop the flood of money pouring into the 2010 elections through 501(c)(4) groups as a result of Citizens United.

Lerner spoke to a small group at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy on October 19, 2010, just two weeks before the wave election that brought the Tea Party and Republicans significant gains in Congress. During her appearance Lerner was asked about the flow of money from corporations to 501(c)(4) groups. “Everyone is up in arms because they don’t like it” Lerner replied, adding “Federal Election Commission can’t do anything about it; they want the IRS to fix the problem.”

Lerner goes on to outline the fact that 501(c)(4) organizations have the right to do “an ad that says vote for Joe Blow” so long as their primary activity is social welfare. However Lerner again emphasizes the political pressure the IRS was under at the time saying, “So everybody is screaming at us right now ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?'” Lerner concludes by saying she won’t know if organizations have gone too far in campaigning until she looks at their “990s next year.”

Contrary to Lerner’s statement, everyone did not object to the Citizens United decision. The pushback was clearly partisan with the most high profile opponent being President Obama himself. Days after the decision, Obama used his weekly radio address to attack the ruling saying it would “open the floodgates” to special interest advertising in elections.

A few days later Obama castigated the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. Speaking to a national audience with members of the Court in attendance Obama stated, “Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates to special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections.”

The President’s State of the Union reference to Citizens United ended with a call for Congress to reverse the decision by law. The so-called DISCLOSE act was given strong backing by the President throughout 2010 in an attempt to stop what Democrats saw as a flood of campaign money. The White House blog describes the President “pounding his hand on his pedestal” as he advocated for the act’s passage in the summer of 2010.

Lerner’s statements in late 2010 demonstrate that the IRS was keenly aware of the political firestorm taking place and demands that her organization do something to stop the flow of money from corporations to political campaigns. While Lerner is unequivocal that she can do nothing about the legal political activity of 501(c)(4) groups, it is a remarkable coincidence that the extra scrutiny given applications by Tea Party and 9/12 groups, which began in March 2010, had the effect of hampering the very activity which she says “everyone” wanted the IRS to stop.

It is also noteworthy that Lois Lerner paraphrases President Obama’s framing of the issue when she says, “the Supreme Court dealt it a huge blow, overturning a hundred year old precedent that said basically corporations can give directly in political campaigns.” Was she aware who was making this political argument she seems to have adopted wholesale?

There is evidence that a political appointee was aware of the targeting of Tea Party groups at the exempt organizations division of the IRS. However, Obama’s high profile pushback on Citizens United in late January 2010 probably insured the IRS would pay attention simply because it insured the topic would be a high profile news story.

TIGTA’s report contains a few key redactions which conceal precisely how the scrutiny of Tea Party groups began. Reading between the lines it seems media attention played a role. Plans by a Tea Party group to create a new 501(c)(4) were featured in stories at the NY Times and NPR just a couple weeks after Obama’s statements about Citizens United. These stories apparently caught the attention of the IRS which regularly monitors news stories to be aware of developing issues. Of course it’s possible the IRS would have caught this regardless, but President Obama’s highlighting of the issue just a couple weeks earlier certainly gave the subject additional news value.

Though the Obama administration initially expressed outrage over the IRS targeting of Tea Party, it has since labeled it a “phony scandal.” Democrats have argued that progressive groups also received scrutiny from the IRS. However these claims of non-partisanship never explain the leak of private information from the IRS to left-leaning Pro-Publica in 2012.

More significantly, IRS data shows that 100 percent of Tea Party applications were scrutinized and that almost no applications were approved for a period of two years. Most were finally cleared in mid 2012 after a letter from Congress inquiring about the hold up finally led to a flurry of approvals.

SEAL Team 6 UPDATE: Families Force Congress To Investigate Mysterious Chopper Crash

Although the Seal Team 6 may be the least known of the Obama’s scandals, it may rank as the largest atrocity.  We have an update to this story, thanks to Alex Jones and InfoWars.

InfoWars reports: Led by firebrand Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Congress is to launch an official investigation into the mysterious helicopter crash that killed several members of the Navy SEAL team 6 in Afghanistan in 2011.

Back in May, the families of the SEALs went public with concerns that the Obama administration was at least partially responsible for the deaths of their sons.

The family members say that they still have not received satisfactory answers to their questions, and that there are still many inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations they have been provided.

“We’re going to dive into this.” said Chaffetz, who is acting in his position as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on National Security.

30 Americans were killed in the crash on August 6, 2011 when insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan, making it the largest loss of life in a single incident for the U.S. military during the war. 22 of the victims belonged to the same unit as the Navy SEALS involved in the purported Osama Bin Laden operation, just three months earlier.

US military officials have maintained that none of the individuals involved directly in the Bin Laden mission were killed in the crash. However, sources have claimed that there were at least two SEALs who died on the chopper who had been involved in the Bin Laden raid.

Some of the families feel that the Obama administration’s handling of the death of Bin Laden made retaliatory attacks against SEAL Team 6 more likely. Family members have also expressed concerns that SEALS were sent into battle “without special operations aviation and proper air support.”

Chaffetz has said that he is preparing to send questions to the Pentagon and may hold congressional hearings on the issue. He noted that the families deserve answers: “That’s why you do an investigation. I want to be as factual as I can.” he said.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who is representing some of the families told reporters “This is a scandal even greater than Benghazi.”

“There we lost four valued American lives; here we sacrificed 30 American soldiers. The big question is were these brave Americans sold out by the Afghani government as payment to the Taliban for the death of bin Laden?” Klayman added.

Klayman’s questions stem from the fact that Afghani forces accompanying the Navy SEAL servicemen on the helicopter were most likely not properly vetted, meaning that they may have disclosed classified information to the Taliban about the mission, resulting in the shoot down of the helicopter.

Pentagon documents have confirmed that immediately prior to the take off of the helicopter, seven Afghan commandos who were listed on the passenger itinerary were mysteriously replaced by other Afghan military officials.

Defense officials have confirmed that all seven names of the Afghan soldiers on the passenger list did not tally with those on board when the chopper took to the air.

The families of the SEALs have noted that their sons did not have trust in Afghan soldiers, with one quoted as saying, “They are loyal to the highest bidder.”

Charlie Strange, the father of one of the killed SEALs also pointed out “There was no eye in the sky tracking [the Chinook]. Why not?”

In addition, pre-assault fire was requested by the team, but was denied by military officials on the ground.

“My son Michael died,” Strange said. “I want to know, who made these calls?”

The Pentagon probe into the shoot down denies that the incident was an “established ambush,” instead claiming that “it was a lucky shot of a low-level fighter that happened to be living [in the area]. He heard all the activity and he happened to be in the right spot.”

Families have countered those suggestions by pointing out that leading militants took to the internet in the immediate aftermath of the attack, to boast that they had successfully ambushed SEAL Team 6.

The Pentagon has also claimed that, despite recovering all the bodies of those killed, the helicopter’s black box was washed away in a flash flood.

The Pentagon told the families that all the bodies were cremated due to the fact that they were badly burned in the crash. However, pictures have emerged that show some deceased SEALs without bad burns.

“The body I saw didn’t need to be cremated,” Rep. Chaffetz said, also noting that the DoD’s explanation regarding the helicopter’s black box is “awfully odd.”

Perhaps even more controversially, family members have also provided evidence that suggests a Muslim cleric attended the funerals of the service members and disparaged them by “damning them as infidels to Allah” during an Islamic prayer.

Refusing to answer specific questions, a DoD spokesperson stated “the operational planning and execution of this mission was consistent with previous missions” and “was thoroughly investigated … we share in the grief of all of the families who lost their loved ones. The loss of 38 U.S. and Afghan military personnel was a tragic loss during a difficult campaign.”

 

IRS Scandal Revisited: Obama Administration Closer than First Thought, Obama Appointee Role Under Fire

The Blaze reports: Though the scandal surrounding the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups has fallen from breaking news headlines in recent weeks, more information is continuing to trickle out on the matter.

On Wednesday, four House Republicans released excerpts from congressional testimony with a number of involved IRS employees indicating the scandal may be closer to the White House than previously known, though there is still no evidence to indicate President Obama was personally involved.

However, it seems an Obama appointee may have been.

The Washington Post writes:

The chief counsel’s office for the Internal Revenue Service, headed by a political appointee of President Obama, helped develop the agency’s problematic guidelines for reviewing “tea party” cases, according to a top IRS attorney.

In interviews with congressional investigators, IRS lawyer Carter Hull said his superiors told him that the chief counsel’s office, led by William Wilkins, would need to review some of the first applications the agency screened for additional scrutiny because of potential political activity.

Previous accounts from IRS employees had shown that Washington IRS officials were involved in the controversy, but Hull’s comments represent the closest connection to the White House to date.

The head of Hull’s unit, Michael Seto, also spoke with investigators, adding that the former head of the Internal Revenue Service’s division on tax-exempt organizations Lois Lerner instructed that certain tea party applications undergo special scrutiny that included a “multi-layer review” that involved her own staff as well as the chief counsel’s office.

Hull, who worked in the approval process, described how he was “taken aback” when, after the IRS had held the applications for prolonged periods of time, they instructed him to solicit more “current” information from the groups.

Another individual who testified, Mr. Hull’s supervisor Ronald Shoemaker, said the chief counsel’s office wanted more information about the groups’ activities “right before the election period.”

Conservative organizations like Tea Party and 9/12 groups have faced appalling mistreatment at the hands of the IRS for several years. Many were asked to provide countless pages of information, some of which was personal or difficult to obtain, all while waiting inordinate periods of time for approval.

The IRS was quick to defend Wilkins back in May after it was revealed that the targeting was discussed with the chief counsel in 2011.

A reporter pressed White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on why the president’s appointee failed to share the shocking information with the White House, but the IRS said the meeting was with members of his office, not Wilkins himself. The implication was presumably that Wilkins was ignorant of the abuse.

The new information, though, will likely prompt closer examination of his role and his connections with the White House.

PETRAEUS ON BENGHAZI: Ex-CIA Directory Frustrated with Talking Points

Ex-CIA Directory Gen. David H. Petraeus obviously was a major player in Benghazi, but it’s beginning to look a lot like he had been frustrated with the talking points all along.

“These will not respond to what Rupersberger asked for and I’d just as soon not use them. They won’t even let us add the Cairo warning. But it’s their call (national security staff). Thanks for your work.”

Petraeus was frustrated with Benghazi talking points that removed …

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com5/10/13

Is it any wonder that Petreaus's private life suddenly exploded? The Weekly Standard reported new details today describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he learned the Saturday after the attack …

Petraeus didn't approve of final Benghazi talking points: “I'd just as …

www.therightscoop.com5/11/13

So why did he not object? Fox News reported on Petraeus as well, and notes in the second half of their report that Petraeus may have known at the time that his relationship with Paul Broadwell was being investigated by the …

Okay, so we know Petraeus obviously did not support the action plan taken on Benghazi. And after Jay Carney threw Petreus under the bus last Friday, time will tell how much he will impact future hearings. One thing is for sure, Petraeus is resigned and no longer has ties to Washington, he becomes a dangerous man to the Obama administration. We will watch this one.

HICKS CONFIRMS COVER UP: Was Told Not To Talk To Congressman

http://embed.newsinc.com/Single/iframe.html?WID=1&VID=24806847&freewheel=69016&sitesection=breitbartprivate&width=640&height=480

Gregory Hicks testified to The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing confirms the was told “not to talk” to Congressman Jason Chaffetz who was investigating the Benghazi attack.

In other questioning: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) couldn’t believe what he was hearing: “So the people at State told you, ‘Don’t talk to the guy who is coming to investigate?’” Hicks’ answer: “Yes, sir.” Jordan pressed: “You’ve had several congressional delegations come to various places you’ve been around the world. Has that ever happened, where lawyers get on the phone to you prior to a congressional delegate coming to investigate … Have you ever had anyone tell you, ‘Don’t talk with the people from Congress coming to find out what took place?” Hicks: “Never.”

HANNITY: Benghazi is a Massive, Massive Failure and Cover-up

“5/6/13 – As new information emerges about last September’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Fox News host Sean Hannity is seething that it took this long for the media–and some Republicans–to acknowledge the Obama administration’s “massive, massive failure and cover-up.” On his radio show Monday, Hannity tore into the “mainstream, suck-up, kiss-ass media” for ignoring what he and his fellow conservative pundits knew all along. “This media, that is dead in this country” ignored the real story for eight months, and are now “finally” covering the Benghazi attack as he believes they should have been covering it since it occurred.

Hannity said that the “massive, massive failure and cover-up” by the Obama administration was all done for “political power.” He said the motivation was about “lying to maintain political power. Lying to the American people repeatedly to save Obama’s chances for re-election.”

To prove that he was up on the real story from the beginning, Hannity revealed that he sent off damning emails to unnamed members of the Romney campaign the night of the third and final 2012 presidential debate. In the previous debate, which came just over a month after the Benghazi attack, moderator Candy Crowley helped President Obama score a victory over his opponent by confirming that he did call the attack an “act of terror” the day after it occurred, contrary to Mitt Romney’s assertions. By the third debate, Romney had apparently made the decision not to go on offense on Benghazi, a strategy praised by Fox News’ Dana Perino and others.

That night, Hannity said, he remembers writing to people in the Romney campaign, adding, “I did not mince words. I will tell you, honestly, I was cursing at them, calling them every name I could think of.” Hannity said he was “livid” that a “decision was made to play it safe.” That strategy plus the media “ignoring” the facts, Hannity concluded, ultimately “cost Romney the election.”

Despite the best efforts of some of the more conservative members of the media, the Benghazi attack never became a deciding factor in the 2012 election. That may be partly due to Obama’s perceived victory on the issue during that final debate, as Hannity evidently felt at the time, and let his Romney campaign contacts know.”

BENGHAZI: Obama Denied Aid in Attack

Whistleblowers will finally have their chance to clear the air next Wednesday, in a special hearing by the House Oversight Panel.  There promises to be an unleashing of some surprising details — if common sense prevails, this hearing will act as a springboard to another hearing — the impeachment of Barack Obama for the deaths of four Americans.

Two Navy SEALS Glenn Doherty and Tyronne Woods were in Benghazi at the time working with the CIA on an intelligence mission to locate shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles that were stolen by Al Qaeda. Doherty and Woods both heard shots being fired near the consulate.  It’s been recorded that Woods radioed to inform his superiors and tell them what he was hearing and requested permission to assist at the consulate. That’s when the now infamous command “stand down” came through “load and clear.” An hour later, they called again to report the gunfire and requested to assist and were again told to “stand down!” Why? Only the President can give the order to military units to cross a country’s borders.

Fox News has two related stories regarding State Department and CIA employees who reportedly have information they wish to offer about the Obama administration’s conduct in relation to the Benghazi attack. According to a …

“Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.”

Fox News reported in a May 2nd article that State Department and White House never carried out any permission:

“On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help — but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/special-ops-called-for-military-assets-to-move-into-position-during-libya/#ixzz2SAbLN3DR

Conservative Angle has taken a firm stand here and here, to conclude Benghazi is not only an impeachable offense, but somebody needs to do some serious time for this horrific and preventable tragedy. If you have any information about Benghazi, now is your time to redeem the senseless murders — Conservative Angle will follow the special hearing beginning Wednesday, May 8th.

Trey Gowdy: Benghazi Whistleblowers Silenced?

Trey Gowdy talks to Greta Van Susteren about the special hearing to take place next Wednesday, 5/8/2013.

Why Benghazi is an Impeachable Offense

It’s been over a decade since that fateful day on September 11th, 2001.  And of course as we all know, history is predisposed to repeat itself as it did at a consulate in Libya eleven years later to the day.

For those that do not follow the incessant Islam charades played by this Terrorist-in-Chief, Benghazi will go down as an abstruse conspiracy against their savior, wrongfully accused by those dreadful conservatives.  That’s all they know and that’s all they want to know.

But in reality, Benghazi was yet another demonic envisage that went astray and ultimately delivered a severe blow to the heart of our constitution, all at the hands of our own administration.  That same administration continues to be marred in atrocities, one right after the another, and leave those with some sanity left, wondering what it will take to inculpate this president and end the ongoing nightmare our country is experiencing.

Rest assured, this Radical-in-Chief wants to spare you the gory details of Benghazigate – nothing to see here, now move along and return to your daily mundane lives like a good little proletariat.  This abomination will not likely go away without a fight however.  Impeaching a sitting president is never easy, but immense pressure from the conservatives will keep this hope alive and well.

As the Benghazi Plot Thickens, Congress Must Not Get Sidetracked

www.aim.org11/27/12

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and most recently The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left …

ANDREW McCARTHY: BENGHAZI, RICE AND THE CONSULATE …

www.ruthfullyyours.com11/28/12

Understand, I am not under any illusions that the Benghazi scandal will actually result in anyone’s impeachment, much less removal from office. Again, impeachment is a … For whatever reason, he calculated that it was in his interest not to focus on Benghazi — indeed, he and his advisers somehow decided it was to his advantage to allow no daylight between Obama’s handling of foreign affairs and what a President Romney would do. I point this out not to dwell on …

http://mediamatters.org/embed/191288

What happened on September 11th, 2012 is another albatross of this administration, concocted by the same man that wants to destroy the United States and resume it under a form of Sharia Obama-style.  Make no mistake about it — Obama has blood on his hands from these four Americans, and it will take a gritty effort by the Republicans to pull off retribution, which so far as been spotty at best.

But impeachment is certainly not extreme in this case, and the proceedings will most likely gain momentum once we get past the smoke and mirrors, which were no doubt, another imposition planted by the Terrorist-in-Chief to cover his bloody tracks.

In the end, we must rally around the effort to find the real cause of Benghazi if not for our own mortality, for our children’s future.  The Benghazi attack was another blow to the resolve of our country.  Only this time it was an inside deal that delivered the blow.