2007-03-01 07:19:19 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Because in a democracy there has to be a 'fall guy' to take the blame.
It does not matter that he may not have been made aware of the problem, it does not matter that the Washington Post did a smear job - he is the general and he has to take the blame.
2007-03-01 07:40:38 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Forbes.com says:
Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who was commanding general of the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command as well as Walter Reed hospital, was relieved of command by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey.
In a brief announcement, the Army said service leaders had "lost trust and confidence" in Weightman's leadership abilities "to address needed solutions for soldier outpatient care" at Walter Reed.
"The Army and the Defense Department launched a series of investigations after The Washington Post (nyse: WPO - news - people ) published a series of stories last week that documented problems in soldiers' housing and in the medical bureaucracy at Walter Reed, which has been called the Army's premier caregiver for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. After a visit to the hospital compound last Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said those found to have been responsible for the problems at Walter Reed would be "held accountable."
2007-03-01 07:30:22 · answer #2 · answered by William E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's what happens to General Officers when something under their command goes wrong. The person at the top with the stars is the fall guy because he is ultimately responsible for everything under his command. Even though the root cause is not his fault 99% of the time, he still has to stand up and take it up the @$$. Same thing happened to the Commandant and Vice Commandant at the Air Force Academy when they had the big sex scandal with the cadets. Doesn't matter that there was a standing policy against it, doesn't matter that they both briefed the cadets that sexual misconduct would not be tolerated, doesn't matter that they had an open-door policy where any of those cadets could have walked in at any time and reported what was going on; they were in charge so they get hosed.
2007-03-01 07:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by sarge927 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Walter Reed was on the chopping block scheduled to be closed(to save money)!!!
In the middle of two wars no less!!!
I suspect the general was fired to protect those who made the decision to close that facility. Can you say bush and co.
Yet again this administration has shown it's utter stupidity and and disregard for the American People!
When are we gonna wake up get out of this stupid I raq war and throw bush, cheney, rumsfeld and who ever else got us into this mess (and please don't mention 911, Iraq had nothing to do with 911) in jail?
Impeach bush NOW!!!
2007-03-03 17:26:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because officers are accountable to the people they lead. The general knew that there was a problem, and failed to take appropriate corrective action to fix it.
2007-03-01 07:23:39 · answer #5 · answered by around_the_world_jenny 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he is a scapegoat and will still retire with full benefits and pension. They need to fire a couple of hundred people in the VA because most of them are completely useless.
2007-03-01 07:30:42 · answer #6 · answered by beaudrewufl 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because he is a scapegoat of the administration's incompetence. The buck stopped right at him so that those above him can escape their own responsibilities.
2007-03-01 07:59:00 · answer #7 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The hospital was very poorly run.
2007-03-01 07:27:27 · answer #8 · answered by Buffy Summers 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋