President Obama's Second $1.5M Brussels Hotel Bill in Less Than Three Months

    In late March of this year, President Obama stayed in Brussels, Belgium for about 24 hours on a weeklong trip through Europe.  Lodging at The Hotel in Brussels cost $1.5 million, as we reported in April, including rooms for the president and his entourage, as well as for the advance team in the weeks preceding the visit.
    Less than two and a half months later, President Obama returned to Brussels again for about 24 hours for a G-7 meeting in early June, once again stayed at The Hotel, and again incurred a cost of $1.5 million.  This time, the documents cited a need for "399 Lodging Rooms, office rooms, and conference rooms from 5/22/2014 – 6/6/2014":

    For the same trip, a contract for over $1 million for rental vehicles was posted as well.  The contract covered an "[e]stimated 141 Rental Vehicles from 5/20/2014 – 6/7/2014."

    The rental vehicles are in addition to the vehicles that accompany the president on all his trips, including The Beast, the president's armored limousine.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Honor and Distinction: A 'Throwaway Line'?

    National Security Advisor Susan Rice's dubious assertion on ABC's "This Week" that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" has further tarnished her Sunday morning news show reputation. In a with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies attempt at a defense of Rice, the American Prospect's Paul Waldman, blogging for the Washington Post (via James Taranto,) wrote:

Conservatives are up in arms over the fact that Susan Rice said Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" before he was captured by the Taliban. But how many times have we heard that phrase? It's become a meaningless throwaway line.

    If "honor and distinction" has become a meaningless throwaway line, then Susan Rice has a lot of company in the Obama administration throwing it. The White House website is replete with examples, among them:

Barack Obama, on Memorial Day, 2011: "From Gettysburg to Kandahar, America's sons and daughters have served with honor and distinction, securing our liberties and laying a foundation for lasting peace."

Barack Obama, on Memorial Day, 2012: "...our veterans are part of an unbroken chain of men and women who have served our country with honor and distinction."

Barack Obama, on Memorial Day, 2013: "America has been blessed with an unbroken chain of patriots who have served our country with honor and distinction."

Valarie Jarrett, about gay soldiers: "...many patriotic servicemembers who were forced to live the same kind of lie that David [Hall] lived, and were discharged, despite serving our country with honor and distinction." 

Barack Obama, proclamation in 2009 about Hispanics: "Hispanics have served with honor and distinction in every conflict since the Revolutionary War, and they have made invaluable contributions through their service to our country." 

Michelle Obama, about the Coast Guard: "And I have no doubt that you will carry on the proud Coast Guard tradition and serve our country with honor and distinction." 

White House on Iraq War soldiers: "American troops served in Iraq with honor and distinction from March 19, 2003 until December 2011." 

Barack Obama, on Marine survivors of Beirut, Lebanon barracks bombing: "They were faithful to their comrades in arms and served with honor and distinction in the finest tradition of the U.S. military." 

Barack Obama, on veterans, including those from upstate New York, where he happened to be giving a speech: "Our men and women in uniform have served this country with such honor and distinction -- a lot of them come from upstate New York." 

Barack Obama, on Native Americans: "Native Americans have also served in the United States Armed Forces with honor and distinction, defending the security of our Nation with their lives." 

Barack Obama, on Richard Holbrooke: "For nearly 50 years, Richard served the country he loved with honor and distinction."

    Over on the State Department's website, examples abound as well, including this one:

Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2012: "Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor and distinction."

    Perhaps Paul Waldman could review the above list and determine which instances were also in his view "meaningless throwaways." Or perhaps he could just acknowledge that in the case of Susan Rice's ill-advised use of the words, political considerations and an attempt to justify President Obama's much maligned and possibly illegal prisoner swap led to a different throwaway: the truth.

Intel Official: Three Biggest National Security Threats Are Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda

    Addressing a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum Tuesday, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers detailed a laundry list of national security threats that the United States faces today, the American Forces Press Services reports, including:

...several permutations of al-Qaida and its affiliates, homegrown violent extremists, unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, Russian revanchism, cyber threats and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    But when it came to naming the top three threats, al Qaeda swept the rankings:

"But the three biggest threats are al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula -- centered in Yemen -- and the growing al-Qaida threat in Syria and al-Qaida's affiliates, … who are spread elsewhere and who are taking advantage of what we call metastasization … across the Middle East and North Africa. … And so this really remains job one for the intelligence community and our special operations forces," he told the audience. 

    Vickers repeated the Obama administration's contention that "core" al Qaeda has been severely degraded, but he acknowledged that even that core group remains a viable threat:

"While we've had a lot of success in severely degrading the Al-Qaida core in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, they continue to pose a threat, in particular a [constitutional] threat down the road," Vickers said.

    Vickers noted that the war in Syria has presented a particular challenge as it is "giving rise to a significant terrorism threat[.]" The complicating factor is that while the Obama administration is seeking to support the opposition, the opposition finds itself in de facto alliance with al Qaeda linked groups who also oppose Bassar Assad's government.
    A report in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal underscores Vicker's warnings. According to the Journal, the Rand Corporation will release a report on Thursday showing the "number of [global jihadist] groups increasing by more than 50% and the estimated number of militants doubling." The war in Syria is said to be responsible for the greatest growth in recent years with "more than half of the number of al Qaeda-sympathizing jihadists world-wide" located in Syria.
    Undersecretary Vickers also alluded to the continuing challenge of balancing the risks and rewards of intelligence, an issue that has caused a number of headaches for President Obama throughout his tenure:

Intelligence is a significant source of advantage for the United States. … It's an advantage that's very important to us, but it's also one that has to be used aggressively, but also prudently, to make sure we're helping our leaders solve problems and not adding to their problems," Vickers said.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

State Dept. in January: Giving in to Terrorist Demands 'Perpetuates the Action' of Kidnappings

    Time Magazine is reporting that, during an interview about the deal to trade Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, when "[a]sked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, a commander laughed. 'Definitely.'" The response should not come as a surprise to the Obama administration given an exchange that took place at a State Department press briefing in January of this year.
    A reporter asked spokesperson Jen Psaki about a UN resolution to discourage private companies from paying ransom to terrorists for the release of kidnap victims. The reporter said that "basically, these companies paying a ransom through their own insurance is really one of the only ways that we’ve seen success of release of these kidnapping victims." Despite the apparent "success", Psaki told the reporter that giving in to the terrorists' demands simply "perpetuates the action":

MS. PSAKI: Well, our concern is, as I mentioned, the – what this perpetuates, which is the fact that terrorists kidnap people and they have raised well over $120 million in ransom payments. So the belief here, clearly, by the UN Security Council, but the United States, is that this is not an approach that can continue because it perpetuates the action. But beyond that, I’d have to check with our team and see if there’s more specifics on it.

    The Washington Posts has reported that early in the Bergdahl ordeal, the Taliban's demands for his release included "$1 million and 21 Afghan prisoners." Spokesperson Marie Harf could not confirm or deny this week whether or not cash payments were considered as part of the deal as executed by the Obama administration last week when five Taliban commanders released into Qatari custody. But in the January press briefing, Psaki warned against not just ransom, but "concessions" as well [emphasis added]:

So we commend the consensus adoption of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2133 on kidnapping for ransom, which identifies kidnapping for ransom as a source of terrorist financing and expresses the Council’s determination to secure the safe release of hostages without ransom payments or political concessions... 

The resolution is also directly in line with the United States longstanding policy to make no concessions.

 However, this week, Harf would not concede that releasing the five detainees even amounted to a concession:

QUESTION: Well, it’s just – it’s very general, but it relates to this. When people are saying the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorist groups, is that statute or is that general policy? And -- 

MS. HARF: Well, our line is that we don’t make concessions -- 

QUESTION: That’s what I was about to ask you. 

MS. HARF: -- which is different. I mean, that’s the – you’re quoting it colloquial. That’s actually not what you’ll hear us say from the podium (inaudible). 

QUESTION: Okay. And how do you define the difference? 

MS. HARF: How do we define the difference? Well, I -- 

QUESTION: Between making concessions and negotiating. 

MS. HARF: I think it’s clear that we don’t make concessions to terrorists. And that’s a judgment, right, that we don’t – I think – I don’t know. I think those words, using Matt, I think are fairly well defined. 

QUESTION: So releasing five of their prisoners or five of their -- 

MS. HARF: Is not making a concession. 

QUESTION: It’s not a concession? 

MS. HARF: No. It is consistent absolutely with what’s happened in previous wars, including Korea, including Vietnam. I think one of the large tranches of prisoners in Vietnam, it was something like around 500 Americans for 1,200 North Vietnamese. So again, this has a long history in the United States of prisoner swaps.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

WH in 2013: Return of Bergdahl, Release of Detainees Two Separate Issues

    At the White House press briefing Monday, Jay Carney was not asked directly about his statement from June 2013 that "we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law," as THE WEEKLY STANDARD first reported yesterday.  However, the Washington Post reports that Carney rejected criticism about the lack of notice to Congress:

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday dismissed criticism from lawmakers over the administration's Taliban prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, saying the deal "should not have come as a surprise to members of Congress" because the basic outlines had been discussed for years.

    White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough echoed Carney's assertion:

At a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Monday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also defended the move, saying: "We've been consulting with members of Congress about this effort, including the potential transfer of five Gitmo detainees, for years."

    However, in the same June 2013 press briefing where Carney made his statement that the White House would consult with Congress before making any detainee transfer decisions, he made clear that the White House considered the return of Sgt. Bergdahl and the release of any detainees to be two separate issues [emphasis added]:

Q    So you haven’t ruled it out [the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay]? 

MR. CARNEY:  I’m simply saying that -- first of all, you have to separate the two issues.  We are focused on the return  -- the safe and immediate return of Sergeant Bergdahl, and we continue to use the tools at our disposal to help bring that about. 

We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place.  And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees.  And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that.  So we remain committed to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as you know.  But separate from that on these specific issues about individual detainees, that would be a process that is done in accordance with law.

    The Obama administration is also claiming that secrecy and lack of time were other considerations in the lack of Congressional consultation or even notification.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers is now saying Congress was last consulted about a possible Bergdahl-detainee swap in 2011, the Hill reports.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Jay Carney, 2013: No Decisions About Bergdahl-Detainee Deal 'Without Consulting With Congress'

    Among the questions being raised about this weekend's exchange of  Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five top Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo is why Congress was not informed of the move ahead of time.  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Meet the Press on Sunday that concerns over the health and perhaps even the survival of Bergdahl required secrecy, telling reporters, "We couldn't afford any leaks anywhere" because the deal was "essentially an operation to save the life of Sgt. Bergdahl."
    But just under a year ago in June 2013, then-Press Secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal in his response to a reporter's questions about this very deal, saying, "[W]e would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law."
    Here is the full exchange from the White House transcript [emphasis added]:

Q    Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.  Is this something that the administration is considering?  Is this something that the President would agree to? 

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans -- between the Taliban and the Afghan government.  However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. 

We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release.  We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue -- using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools -- the effort to return him home safely.  And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. 

With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made -- the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. 

As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.

    President Obama announced on Friday, the day before the Bergdahl-detainee exchange, that Carney was leaving his position as press secretary.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

VA Official Bragged About Agency's Scheduling System in 2013 Speech

   A report released this week by the inspector general for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) found that "inappropriate scheduling practices are systemic throughout VHA." But as recently as September 2013, Stephen Warren, the Executive in Charge for Information and Technology for the VA, said that he could not "pass up an opportunity to brag about how" VistA, the scheduling software in use for more than two decades by the VA, "plays a role in providing the quality care Veterans receive at VA."
    Warren made the remarks in his keynote address at the 2nd annual summit of the Open Source Electronic Health Record Alliance (OSEHRA):

I know I have already talked a lot about VistA, but I cannot in good [conscience] pass up an opportunity to brag about how it plays a role in providing the quality care Veterans receive at VA.  VistA at VA supports the care for over six million veterans, with 75 million outpatient visits and 680,000 inpatient admissions at more than 1,500 sites of care, including: 152 hospitals, 965 outpatient clinics, 133 community living centers, and 293 Vet Centers. 

These facilities are run by over 244,000 employees including more than 20,000 physicians and 53,000 nurses and have affiliations with more than 1,200 educational institutions where more than 100,000 health care students receive clinical training from VA each year.

    Warren spoke about VistA Evolution, the VA's current effort to use "open source" software innovations to improve the scheduling and other aspects of the care provided to veterans by the VA. (The VA recently awarded $3 million in prizes in a contest for medical appointment scheduling applications.) An April 2014 presentation by the VA spells out the VistA Evolution concept in great detail, including this timetable for its development and implementation:

    The presentation borrowed from the popular comic strip Dilbert to make the point about the challenges faced in upgrading the information systems:

    Warren addressed the VA's ambitious plans for VistA evolution at the OSEHRA summit:

VistA Evolution will improve patient-centered care and provide Veterans access to a comprehensive medical profile that supports the transition of care between VA and DOD treatment facilities.  

One of VA’s top priorities is increasing access to care for our nation’s Veterans.  VistA is a prime example of how Open Source is helping to develop and deliver an evolved version to meet that priority.  The fundamental purpose of VA’s Open Source initiative was to accelerate the evolution of VistA.  While VistA provides an integrated view of a patient and VA clinicians love it, we were not keeping up with the demands of our customers, the clinician.. 

The ultimate goal of this Open Source effort is to standardize 133 production VistA instances in support of the VA’s medical centers and clinics and is expected to be complete at all VA sites by the end of 2015.

    The VA's previous effort to upgrade its systems ran for nine years, from 2000 to 2009, and cost $127 million, but in the end did not deliver and was scrapped.
    While the inspector general's report this week does not appear to be critical of VistA itself, it noted that "[d]uring our review at Phoenix HCS we determined that certain audit controls within Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) were not enabled. This limited VHA and the OIG’s ability to determine whether any malicious manipulation of the VistA data occurred." The VA since turned VistA's audit controls.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.