The Walter Reed disgrace shown a spotlight on the facts that the current administration is much more gung-ho on sending young Americans in to battle than they are about caring for them when they return home wounded.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has a different view. He says " "Keeping faith with those who serve must always be a core American value and a cornerstone of American patriotism. Because America's commitment to its servicemen and women begins at enlistment, and it must never end."
In keeping with those views Senator Obama has proposed the creation of a 21st century VA. His plan would overturn the 2003 ban of some veterans and allow ALL veterans back in.
His plan will strengthen all areas of care and have a ZERO tolerance for this nation ever again allowing tens of thousands of veterans to be homeless in America.
His plan will ensure a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life and will fully fund the VA, hire additional claim workers and transform paper claims to electronic.
While in the Senate Obama has passed legislation to improve care and remove red tape for our veterans. As president, his administration, unlike the current one, will give veterans the respect, treatment and care they deserve and an Obama administration will ALWAYS place the interests of the men and women in uniform in the U.S. Military ahead of the for-profit private contractors.
-- Cross posted at Daily Kos
Friday, May 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Steve,
I just found your blog, (thanks to the link you posted on the Leaf Chronicle Forum), and I would love to engage you in some serious discussion of the issues you blog about. I hope that we can engage in an actual intellectual exchange of ideas here, since you seem to not want to engage in a discussion on the LC Forum, over there, you seem to just post your "opinion" then just "run away", not ever actaully "engaging" in a discussion.
So here's my response to some of your comments;
"The Walter Reed disgrace shown a spotlight on the facts that the current administration is much more gung-ho on sending young Americans in to battle than they are about caring for them when they return home wounded."
Have YOU ever been to Walter Reed? I have. It's a fine facility with some of the best health care and professional health care providers in the world.
The "disgrace" you mentioned, was a news story that made the entire Walter Reed hospital sound like it was a substandard facilty akin to a slum! That's not true!
The facility that the story was about, was a barracks type facility, where ambulatory paitents, (those who could take care of themselves), lived while they received therapy and outpaitent care until they could be sent back to their units, or discharged from the service.
This building had been unused for many years before the Iraqi War started and was reopened to accommodate the infulx of soldiers needing this type of housing.
Like ALL military facilities, much of the routine care and maintenance of this facility, (i.e. the routine cleaning and small repairs), of the building fall upon those, who live there. Soldiers, who are ambulatory, can still sweep floors, make their beds, take out the trash, and unstop a toilet. Unfortunately, many of them not only did not do that, but "some of them", (a small minority), even vandalized the place by purposefully stopping up the toilets, puching holes in the walls, etc. (Unfortunately, soldiers are a cross section of Americans and there are those, who will NOT take care of their own houses, no less that housing which they know does not belong to them.)
I concede that there were issues such as leaking pipes and peeling paint that the soldiers could not fix themselves and had no responsibility for. However, these things were the resonsibility of the supervisors of this barracks; and the soldiers, themselves, "should have" pressed for these repairs to the proper authorities. However, the majority of soldiers passing through there, had more pressing thoughts on their minds, such as getting well and getting out of there.
Were there bad problems with this facility? Yes. Do our wounded soldiers deserve better? Yes.
What really "gets me" about your comment on this subject is this phrase;
"...the current administration..."
That sounds as if you blame President Bush, PERSONALLY, for the problems within this facility!
There were supervisors and the soldiers, themselves in this facility. THEY, were responsible for taking care of it, maintaining it, and getting the needed repairs done. If they weren't able to do that because of some "administrative" policy against it, then I'm with you that it's the administration's fault.
However, as soon as this news story broke, this facility was shutdown, the soldiers there moved to other facilities, and this facility is undergoing needed renovations. This shows that if the "administration" had known the conditions here needed it, they could have done this before it became a national news story.
As for "why" didn't the President "know", when he has made visits to Walter Reed. Was this all hidden from him? Did he turn a blind eye to it? No. He just never went through that particular facility. When he has made vists there, he went to the "hospital" itself. To the wards where the soldiers are bedridden. He did not go through the ambulatory barracks. Do you think it's the President's individual responsibility to conduct routine barracks inspections?
Bottom line is that, much of the story was true, much of it was sensationalized, and the responsibility for the problems there probably lie with mid level managers and supervisors who failed to do their jobs!
Do you REALLY "think", that this same kind of thing couldn't/wouldn't happen under an Obama administration? Do YOU "think" that Obama will be such a great President that he will be personally aware of the condition of every Army barracks in the world?
IF this happened under an Obama administration, and the administration took the same kind of immediate corrective action, would you still be blaming the "administartion" for allowing it to occur in the first place?
I hear Obama talking about how much he cares about our veterans and how much he wants to care for them. That's GREAT! You won't find anyone more supportive of that issue than me!
However, I hear him talking more about how much the Bush adminitsration doesn't care about our veterans, than I do about "specific things he is going to do for them", and "how he's going to pay for them"!
Here's another of your comments that I'll comment on;
"His plan will strengthen all areas of care and have a ZERO tolerance for this nation ever again allowing tens of thousands of veterans to be homeless in America."
I have news for you, Steve, first of all, there are NOT "tens of thousands of veterans" homeless in America! That number is absurd! Beyond that, any veteran, who IS homeless, is "homeless" by "choice"! It has NOTHING to do with the fact that they are a veteran. They are "homeless" for the same reason many others are "homeless", because they REFUSE to live "within society". Instead, they are drunks, drug addicts and they won't work, or live by society's "rules".
I KNOW this, from PERSONAL experience! Have YOU ever "personally" known a homeless person? MY wife had an Uncle. A Korean War veteran. An honorable man, who saw combat and served his country. He drew a government disability check for service related disabilities. He was also a DRUNK! He REFUSED to work. REFUSED to live with ANY of his relatives ALL of whom offered him housing. He REFUSED to bathe and act like a decent human being. He lived in a hole in the ground under a bar!
What is President Obama going to do about a guy like that? How is Obama's "ZERO tolerance policy" going to take care of that guy?
You stated;
"While in the Senate Obama has passed legislation to improve care and remove red tape for our veterans."
Can you give me the "specific" legislation that he was responsible for that did this? I would like to go look that up, so can you please give me the "SPECIFIC" legislation, that HE is responsible for that did this? Even if he just "voted" for some legislation that did this, what "specific" legislation was that, so I can reference it? "Voting for" legislation, is NOT the same thing as "being responsible for" it. Did you just get that quote off his web site? Or, do YOU have personal knowledge of legislation that he personally wrote and carried through Congress, (meaning that he was "responsible" for it)? If he really did this, PLEASE give me the "specific" legislation, so that I can reference it. I would appreciate it.
I'll check back here a few times over the weekend to see if we are going to have any discussion of these issues. I honestly would like to engage in an intellectual back and forth, if you are also so inclined.
Joe
Post a Comment