Administration official apologizes for tweets suggesting Bergdahl platoon 'psychopaths'

WASHINGTON –  An Obama administration official apologized Thursday after suggesting on Twitter that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon might have been filled with “psychopaths” – in an apparent attempt to defend Bergdahl against criticism from his fellow soldiers. 
Brandon Friedman, deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, sent out a series of tweets Wednesday night questioning those soldiers trying to “smear” Bergdahl for abandoning his post in 2009.
The first said: “Here's the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”
He went on to argue that Bergdahl might have grown “disillusioned” with leadership and walked off – and that this might give those who served with him “reason to smear him publicly now.”
The tweets quickly caught attention in the media, as others in the administration also have taken swipes at the soldiers who have questioned Bergdahl’s conduct.
The press office for HUD sent out a statement attributed to Friedman Thursday afternoon, in which he backed off the tweets.  
"I’d like to clarify tweets I wrote last night on my personal Twitter account concerning the return of Bowe Bergdahl,” Friedman, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, said in the statement. “First, I do not speak for the Administration on national security issues in any capacity—public or personal.”
Citing his service, he said he has the “highest regard” for fellow service-members.
“While I just wanted to make the point that the public should wait before passing judgment, I unfortunately used my own poor judgment in choosing inappropriate language that many view as disparaging to U.S. service members,” Friedman said. “That was certainly not my intent and I regret making the comments on my personal account in such a way.  I apologize to those with whom I work in the Administration, at HUD, and, most importantly, to any service members who took offense.”
Several of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers have spoken out since the administration announced over the weekend that his freedom was secured, in exchange for the release of five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay. 
Some in the administration have criticized those attacks – NBC reported that aides had even likened the criticism to “swift-boat” attacks, a reference to the battle in 2004 over then-presidential nominee John Kerry’s military service. 

Hillary does People: How to unofficially run for president (and soften your image)

Well, any sense of mystery is fading away: Hillary must be running.
“I’m certainly in the camp that says we need to break down that highest, hardest glass ceiling in American politics,” she tells People magazine. 
Aha! Hillary Clinton, having failed to crack that ceiling in 2008, hears the calling. But then comes the inevitable wiggle room:
“To have a woman president is something I would love to see happen, but I’ll just have to make my own decision about what I think is right for me.”
And there’s this: “I know I have a decision to make. With the extra joy of ‘I’m about to become a grandmother,’ I want to live in the moment. At the same time I am concerned about what I see happening in the country and in the world.”
The People interview with Sandra Sobieraj Westfall is an interesting test run for Hillary’s “Hard Choices” book blitz as she gently deflects questions she doesn’t want to answer. It’s a precursor of her television sitdowns in the next two weeks with Diane Sawyer, Robin Roberts, Bret Baier, Greta Van Susteren, Christiane Amanpour, Cynthia McFadden and Jane Pauley. (A nod to the sisterhood? Bret, who will share the session with Greta, is the only dude so far.
Hillary is staying a million miles away from Monica Lewinsky and didn’t read her Vanity Fair essay. Does she regret having once called her a “narcissistic looney toon”? “I’m not going to comment on what did and didn’t happen. I think everybody needs to look to the future.” Move on, nothing to see here.
(Monica is not so reticent, of course; having declared her intention to bury the blue dress, she’ll be giving an interview to National Geographic TV.)
It’s easy to dismiss this as mostly fluff, but that would be a mistake. In fact, People magazine played a key role in her husband’s 1992 election. By presenting a smiling Bill, Hillary and Chelsea on the cover at a time when many voters didn’t even know the candidate had a daughter, the magazine reintroduced him to the country as a family man.
Thus we learn from People that Hillary organizes her closets, does yoga, and that she and Bill binged on “House of Cards.” Hey, talking about Kevin Spacey beats Benghazi, from her point of view.
More substantively, Clinton addresses the health questions stemming from the 2012 incident in which she fell and hit her head: “I did have a concussion and some effects in the aftermath of it, mostly dizziness, double vision. Those all dissipated.” When it comes up in future interviews, she can say: Asked and answered.
Time’s Joe Klein, for one, questions the “myth of inevitability”:
“For the sake of magazine sales, let’s say she’s running. She’s got it locked, right? She’s the Democratic nominee at the very least, right?...
“But wait a minute. Aren’t the Clintons approaching their sell-by date too? Aren’t we about to become tired of their personal and policy baggage and retinue of overcaffeinated too-loyal aides spewing talking points on cable news?” 
Not to mention pundits spewing talking points about Hillary on cable news.
I’m going to adopt the approach of Fox’s Chris Stirewalt: Hillary Clinton is now running for president. She may at some point decide to stop running for president, but for now she’s running. And this book tour will (almost definitely) prove to be her opening salvo for 2016.

Allen West Calls for Obama Impeachment, Slams 'Delusional Liar' Susan Rice

Allen West calls for Obama impeachment, cites prisoner swap

June 4, 2014|By Anthony Man, Sun Sentinel

Former Congressman Allen West wants his former colleagues in the U.S. House to file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama.
Citing the swap of five Taliban prisoners of war held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the American prisoner of war, West said the action warrants impeachment of the president.
He detailed his case in a radio interview on Tuesday, further explained his reasoning in a blog post on his website, and summed up his feelings on Twitter, writing “The time has come. I call on House leadership to draw up articles of impeachment #Bergdahl.”
From West:
"Obama’s breaking of the law in this case presents serious national security concerns — for all Americans. This is aiding and abetting the enemy, which goes along with the collusion of this administration with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations and supplying weapons and arms to Islamists.
Obama just released the leadership of a terrorist organization, and what did we get in return? A deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments — which it seems that Susan Rice, our esteemed National Security Advisor, didn’t even realize his heinous actions — or maybe as usual she just lied about it again. Bergdahl served the United States with honor and distinction? Let’s not send Susan Rice out ever again.
To hear Obama state that “no American should be left behind” — has he forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi? How about leaving behind American veterans to die?
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that Barack Hussein Obama’s unilateral negotiations with terrorists and the ensuing release of their key leadership without consult — mandated by law — with the U.S. Congress represents high crimes and misdemeanors, an impeachable offense.
So I call upon the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives; Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America. The failure to do so speaks volumes."

Clinton aides tell New York Times to back off in secret summit

(Bailey)  "Sure they want the Times to back off. Maybe they don't want to be asked about our Americans that were murdered in Benghazi. That's right Miss President want a be, we are not going to forget that it was on your watch. And what did you do about it, nothing. Guess you'll try to blame that on Bush too."

Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper's Washington bureau, the Washington Free Beacon has learned. 
Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper. 
During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper's coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions. 
Neither the Times nor the Clinton camp would discuss on the record specifics. However, sources familiar with the meeting describe it as an attempt to brush back and even intimidate the staff of the Times. The sometimes fraught relationship between Clinton and the press has been well documented. 
"We are not going to comment," said a Times spokesperson when contacted by the Free Beacon. 
Reines and another spokesperson for Clinton did not respond to requests for comment. 
Chozick's recent reporting includes a story last month that suggested a family feud was brewing between the Clintons and Marjorie Margolies, Chelsea Clinton's mother-in-law. 
Margolies lost her Democratic primary bid for U.S. Congress in late May, and the Times reported that Hillary Clinton's conspicuous absence from the campaign had rankled some Margolies allies. 
In April, the Times also reported on Clinton's difficulty defining her accomplishments at the State Department.

Government considers freeing another Guantanamo inmate, on heels of Bergdahl swap

ARLINGTON, Va. –  As controversy grows over the release of five hardened Taliban detainees in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Obama administration is considering springing yet another prisoner from Guantanamo Bay.
Fouzi Khalid Abdullah al-Awda appeared via a video feed before a review board Wednesday morning in northern Virginia, often smiling as his private counsel Eric Lewis made the case for his release.
Al-Awda has been held prisoner for 12 years. According to Defense Department officials and his official Guantanamo detainee profile, he traveled from his home in Kuwait to Afghanistan just before the 9/11 attacks to train in terrorist camps, and "possibly" fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda. 
Al-Awda maintains he only went to Afghanistan for "humanitarian reasons to provide alms for the poor and to teach the Koran."
The deliberations follow the administration's controversial decision to free five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo in exchange for Bergdahl over the weekend. Lawmakers say the former prisoners are high-risk and were among the most sought-after detainees by Taliban leadership. There are now 149 detainees left at Guantanamo, which President Obama has struggled to close since taking office in 2009.
Al-Awda's attorney, though, argued his client poses "no continuing significant security threat to the United States." He said his client, if released, would be sent back to Kuwait and immediately put into a rehab facility for at least one year -- though he could be allowed to leave during daytime hours in as early as six months. 
If he is released from that facility, al-Awda would still be subject to extensive security monitoring. His Internet activity would be monitored, he'd have to check in with police at least once a week and he'd be banned from traveling outside Kuwait.
During his decade-plus in captivity, al-Awda has not been a passive prisoner. His personal representatives concede he's been hostile, throwing "food and other items," and participating in hunger strikes. But they also say he has become much calmer in recent years, adding the initial adjustment to prison life "has not been easy."
Al-Awda's immediate goals were described as getting married, starting a family and working for his father, who was a colonel in the Kuwaiti Air Force and fought alongside U.S. forces during the Persian Gulf War. He now owns a plumbing supply business.
While the Kuwaiti foreign minister, interior minister and director of counter terrorism all provided statements supporting al-Awda's release, it is not a done deal.
Pentagon officials argue if he were to engage in extremism, it would likely be through other detainees who already have been released.
The periodic review board overseeing the case now has 30 days to make a decision. If it decides al-Awda should not be transferred, he'll appear before another review board in December.  

Fox News Poll: Voters think Gitmo prisoners receive better health care than vets

More Americans than not think the U.S. government gives better health care to militants captured in the war on terrorism than to U.S. troops who may have fought them on the battlefield. 
A Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that by a 50-31 percent margin, voters think enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay get better health care than veterans. Nearly one in five is unsure (18 percent).
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Majorities of Republicans (57 percent) and independents (58 percent) think the health care for prisoners is better. 
Democrats split: 38 percent think detainees have it better, while 36 percent say veterans do. Another one in four Democrats is unable to say (24 percent).
The poll was conducted in the wake of a Department of Veterans Affairs scandal that found records were falsified to cover up delays in veterans receiving medical attention and several veterans died while waiting for care.
Eric Shinseki, the head of the VA and a decorated Army general who was wounded in combat, resigned Friday. 
More than half of voters agree Shinseki should have been pressured to resign (52 percent), while just over a third thinks he should have been encouraged to stay in his job (35 percent).
By a wide 59-29 percent margin, voters disapprove of how the Obama administration is dealing with the problems at the VA. 
Views among Democrats are split: 44 percent approve, while 43 percent disapprove. 
The issue is clear cut for Republicans: 77 percent disapprove of how Obama is handling the VA. 
Overall, seven voters in 10 rates the care veterans receive negatively: 30 percent say “only fair” and 39 percent rate it as “poor.” Only four percent say the care is “excellent” and 19 percent call it “good.”
The scandal may be reinforcing doubts some voters have about the quality of care Americans will receive under Obamacare: 55 percent don’t think the government will do better with the new health care system than it has with the veterans’ health-care system. Less than a third thinks Obamacare will be run better (31 percent). 
Among veterans, 58 percent think prisoners at Gitmo receive better care and 67 percent rate the quality of care soldiers receive negatively (29 percent “only fair” and 38 percent “poor”).
Among the array of Washington scandals in the news, the VA scandal (33 percent) is the most troubling to voters, followed by the NSA spying scandal (27 percent), the White House handling of Benghazi (15 percent) and the IRS targeting of conservative groups (13 percent).
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 1-3, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Data problems found with 2 million ObamaCare sign-ups, document shows

More than 2 million people who got health insurance under President Obama's law have data discrepancies that could jeopardize coverage for some, a government document shows. 
About 1 in 4 people who signed up have discrepancies, creating a huge paperwork jam for the feds and exposing some consumers to repayment demands, or possibly even loss of coverage, if they got too generous a subsidy. 
The 7-page slide presentation from the Health and Human Services department was provided to The Associated Press as several congressional committees are actively investigating the discrepancies, most of which involve important details on income, citizenship and immigration status. 
Ensuring that health care benefits are delivered accurately is a top priority for HHS nominee Sylvia Mathews Burwell, whose confirmation as department secretary is before the Senate this week. 
Responding to the document, administration officials expressed confidence that most of the discrepancies can be resolved over the summer. Nonetheless, HHS has set up a system to "turn off" benefits for anyone who is found to be ineligible. 
Julie Bataille, communications coordinator for the health care rollout, said most of the discrepancies appear to be due to outdated information in government files -- and the "vast majority" of cases are being resolved in favor of consumers. The government is making an all-out effort to reach those with discrepancies, which officials have termed "inconsistencies." 
"The fact that a consumer has an inconsistency on their application does not mean there is a problem on their enrollment," said Bataille. "Most of the time what that means is that there is more up-to-date information that they need to provide to us." 
The document provided to AP said that 2.1 million people enrolled through the new health insurance exchanges were "affected by one or more inconsistency" as of the end of April. 
The exchanges offer subsidized private coverage to lower-income and middle-class people with no access to health care on the job. The sliding-scale subsidies are based on income and family size, and are also affected by where a person lives. Because they are structured as tax credits, the Internal Revenue Service can deduct any overpayments from a taxpayer's refund the following year. 
Under the law, only citizens and legal immigrants are entitled to subsidized coverage. 
Updated numbers provided by Bataille indicate that the total number of people affected remains about the same as a month ago. About 1.2 million have discrepancies related to income; 505,000 have issues with immigration data, and 461,000 have conflicts related to citizenship information. 
The law contemplated there would be verification problems with the new program, and provided for a 90-day window to clear up discrepancies. During this time, a consumer's coverage is not affected. 
About 60 percent of all the people with discrepancies are still within that 90-day period, said Bataille. Consumers who get a request for additional information can upload documents electronically or mail them in. The HHS request is supposed to specifically describe any information that the government needs. 
The HHS document provided to AP, dated May 8, describes a laborious effort to try to resolve the data problems, largely requiring hands-on work from a legion of workers employed by government contractor Serco, Inc. 
"Current system access and functionality...limits the ability to resolve outstanding inconsistencies," said the document. "A phased approach is proposed, initially leveraging manual processes." 
Atop the priority list are citizenship and immigration issues, then annual income. 
The House Ways and Means Committee will hold hearings next week on the data issues affecting eligibility for health care benefits. The HHS inspector general is expected to deliver a report to Congress later this summer on how well the administration is doing at preventing inaccurate payments and fraud.

Unions slam Obama EPA rule

Labor unions criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations on carbon emissions from power plants on Monday, highlighting growing tensions between the environmentalist and working class arms of the Democratic Party.
Those tensions have come to the forefront as leading Democrats embrace environmentalist policies backed by billionaire political donors that are generally opposed by members of the party’s rank and file base.
Some labor unions, groups generally considered loyally Democratic, rebelled on Monday after the EPA released its new regulations, which studies have suggested will carry hefty economic costs.
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) president Cecil Roberts blasted the proposal, saying it would leave tens of thousands of the union’s members unemployed.
“The proposed rule … will lead to long-term and irreversible job losses for thousands of coal miners, electrical workers, utility workers, boilermakers, railroad workers and others without achieving any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions,” Roberts said in a statement.
According to a UMWA analysis, Roberts said, the rule will cause 75,000 job losses in the coal sector by 2020, rising to 152,000 by 2035.