Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Wounded Vets Trade One Hell for Another

By Aaron Glantz, IPS News. Posted January 18, 2008.


Top Bush administration officials knew about problems like those at Walter Reed, but they had other priorities.
Advertisement

Last year, the United States woke up to the reality of hundreds of thousands of soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and began to grapple with what to do about it.

On Feb. 18, 2007, a headline titled "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration at Army's Top Medical Facility" splashed across the front page of one of the nation's premier newspapers, the Washington Post. The article, which described unsafe conditions and substandard care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, began with the story of Army Specialist Jeremy Duncan, who was airlifted out of Iraq in February 2006 with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, "nearly dead from blood loss."

"Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold," the article read. "When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses."

The Post reported that patients inside Walter Reed, which lies just five miles from the White House, found it difficult to receive the care they were promised and felt they deserved.

When the story broke, politicians from both parties expressed outrage and promised solutions. Walter Reed's commander, Major General George Weightman, was fired almost immediately. Following him out the door was the Secretary of the Army, Frances Harvey.

On Mar. 6, President George W. Bush announced the formation of a bipartisan independent commission lead by former Republican Senator Bob Dole and Donna Shalala, the secretary of Health and Human Services under the Bill Clinton administration.

"It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to you, it's unacceptable to our country, and it's not going to continue," Bush told the American Legion in a speech announcing the commission's formation. "My decisions have put our kids in harm's way. And I'm concerned about the fact that when they come back they don't get the full treatment they deserve."

Three weeks later, Bush paid a visit to Walter Reed, and apologized again: "I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong," Bush told Walter Reed's staff after a tour of the facility. "It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear our uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem."

But the allegations raised in the Washington Post were not actually new. In February 2005, the exact same conditions had been raised in a damning series in the on-line magazine Salon. Wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, reporter Mark Benjamin wrote, are "overmedicated, forced to talk about their mothers instead of Iraq, and have to fight for disability pay. Traumatized combat vets say the Army is failing them, and after a year following more than a dozen soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital, I believe them."

Top Bush administration officials knew about Walter Reed's problems, but they had other priorities. Indeed, before the Washington Post put the facility's substandard conditions on its front page, President Bush's appointees at the Pentagon had strenuously lobbied Congress against funding military pensions, health insurance and benefits for widows of retirees. Their argument: that money spent caring for wounded soldiers and their families could be better spent on state-of-the-art military hardware or enticing new recruits to join the force.

In January 2005, Bush's Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David Chu, the official in charge of such things, went so far as to tell the Wall Street Journal veterans' medical care and disability benefits "are hurtful" and "are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself."

Before the scandal at Walter Reed broke in the Washington Post, the Bush administration ran programs for injured soldiers in much the same way it did the rest of the war -- primarily for the benefit of an elite group of private contractors.

In 2005, with tens of thousands of casualties already reported, a Pentagon commission recommended closing Walter Reed by 2011. When the commission report became public, the Bush administration moved to privatize the facility for as long as it would remain open, turning management of the hospital over to IAP World Services, a politically well-connected firm with almost no experience in military medicine.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hypocrisy, afghanistan, iraq, va

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Drop Dead
Posted by: frank69 on Jan 18, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush regime's mistreatment of veterans is a grim reminder of President Ford's refusal to help New York City when it was in danger of barkruptcy. The NY Daily News headlined: "Ford to NY: Drop Dead!"
That's Bush to veterans: "Drop Dead!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Should ...
Posted by: wilty on Jan 18, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... stay at Walter Reed; see how he likes it!!

So much for that "Support Our Troops"
nonsense!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Veteran Health Care
Posted by: cherylholmes on Jan 18, 2008 5:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would bet all military facilities have staffring shortfalls and worse. I know Ft. Sam Houston and the VA Medical Center in San Antonio do. The VA hospital has been in the news here a lot for failure to care for veterans and for the building being in such poor condition. No one cares in Washington. No one will ever do a thing to help[ them. Bushco's policy towards the veterans is the same as it is to the poor, New Orleans after Katrina, the elderly, the disabled..drop dead useless eaters. No new election will change that either. We have let them do whatever they wanted to us for too long. They know they can get away with it now.

Heard on PBS there are over 200,000 homeless veterans living on the streets too from all wars. Use them up then toss them aside like garbage. That's what we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Surprised
Posted by: SparkyClinton on Jan 21, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised you guys are so concerned about wounded vets on Alternet. Don't you normally just spit on them and call them baby-killers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh HELL NO!! You Didn't!!!!!! Posted by: Stoney 12+1