Why is it so hard to support our troops who have returned from Iraq who need medical services? Why are they not being taken care of? Why is it that the administration only found out because he was "reading the paper"? This is a sadness to me.
2007-03-02 18:18:49 · 15 answers · asked by Jerrysberries 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Ohh, I'm a Liberal, against the war, but I support our men and women in uniform, where-ever they're at!!!
2007-03-02 18:25:55 · update #1
Jeepers, he was supposed to "know the condition of the building" because HE WAS THERE!!! SEVERAL TIMES!!!!
2007-03-02 18:43:25 · update #2
Sorry he knew before that! There was one soldier who came back paralyzed. He home wasn't equipped for a wheelchair. The soldiers dad had to fight tooth and nail to get help to make the home wheelchair accessible. He father took it all the way to Washington. This was over a year ago.
Might be he just found out because more and more soldiers are coming home needing equipment amongst other thing. Yep the public is going to find out, so pretend I just read about it in the paper.
2007-03-02 18:45:54 · answer #1 · answered by wondermom 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I just posted this in answer to another question that's basically the same as yours, so I'll copy and paste it here.
>>>
I can tell you from personal experience that the conditions at Walter Reed have nothing to do with the Bush administration.
I worked at Walter Reed in the late 1990s while Clinton was in office and we were fighting "Clinton's Wars" (all the peacekeeping missions US troops were being sent on across the globe). We had the exact same problems then, and they were a direct result of funding cuts, cuts in military spending, etc.
I was recently back at Walter Reed and while the staff now sees more patients than they did before and also have to provide housing for family members of wounded soldiers, a lot of the old problems have been fixed.
The crappy old med hold barracks that was there when I was has been completely renovated. The old "gym in a trailer" they had has been replaced by a brand new gym. A lot of wards have been redone, repainted, and refurbished. A new computer system is in place to make it easier to share records between wards and among hospitals.
All of these improvements have been made under the current administration, even though there's a war on. Yet the news that are so centered in about how badly the veterans are treated and how horrible and in a shambles the military medical system is completely neglect to tell you about that.
They also neglect to tell you about the run-down barracks on other posts that are run down because of the funding cuts and downsizing of the military under Clinton. When I deployed for OIF at the end of 2003, we spent months refurbishing old barracks that had mold, mildew, water in the basements, etc. They were basically locked up and left when Clinton downsized the armed forces. Now that they're needed, they weren't ready.
If people are going to point fingers they need to point them in the right direction.
2007-03-02 21:13:28 · answer #2 · answered by Abby K9 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I accept as true with Bash's answer...President Obama consulted with militia advisors and the generals his first days in place of work and set a steady withdrawal date that replaced into authorized with the help of Iraq's chief. The date replaced into longer away than initially proposed as a results of complexities; in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, 10,000 troops have been withdrawn from Iraq and redeployed to Afghanistan close to the Pakistani border the place the Taliban have settled. we could desire to consistently proceed with warning, that's in part why President Obama chosen to no longer launch the torture pictures that must be inflammatory, beginning previous wounds between the Iraqi human beings. we could desire to consistently wait and notice...
2016-10-02 07:33:24 · answer #3 · answered by layden 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Secretary of the Army is an appointed position, just as the Director of FEMA is an appointed position. If the President has the power to elect officals, he needs to be accountable for their actions. If I were a CEO of a large company, and hired an accountant that embezzlled millions then vanished, guess what? My investors would hold ME resposible for hiring the jerk.
As for the conditions at Walter Reed...it doesnt matter who broke the story, we just were not prepared. A longer war than expected, advances in medicine and field armor...these things add up to more wounded and less dead soldiers. Which is great, until you run out of beds and have to use a building that nobody thought would have to be used. Wounded soldiers deserve better.
2007-03-02 19:40:11 · answer #4 · answered by Albert L 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ah, I have a question.
Just how was the President supposed to know the condition of that building at Walter Reed ?
The Administration didn't run that building, the Army did.
Do you really expect the Administration to physically go look at each and every building that the federal government owns to see what their condition is ??
Or are they supposed to rely on the professionals who work for the government to do their jobs ?
The reason the Administration only found out by reading it in the paper, is because certain individuals in the Army didn't do their job.
The Walter Reed leadership knew the building had problems and did nothing about it, that's why the commander of Walter Reed was relieved of command.
The Secretary of the Army was ask to resign after he tried down playing the conditions.
So, while the shape of the building is a disgrace, trying to blame it on the President is just plain silly.
Is the President supposed to know a toilet at the SS office in Greensboro NC doesn't flush ?????
The President can only address the problems he is informed about.
And from the shape of that building, this is not a new problem, but has been going on for years and years.
2007-03-02 18:38:13 · answer #5 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋
That was ONE part of ONE building in the Walter Reed Complex.
The article you're refering to was a hit-piece by the Washington Post.
I've attached Lt. Smash's article looking at that - And you'll note that the commander of WRHC was relieved and the Secretary of the Army have resigned over this issue.
You want to support the troops? LET THEM WIN!! Stop giving morale boosts to the terrorists, stop undercutting our troopers funding, stop telling the terrorists that they just have to hang on a little while longer and our troopers will be yanked out, stop sending "I hope you die" notes to troopers in Walter Reed, stop saying "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS" and then doing everything you can to make their mission fail.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS - LET THEM WIN!
Orion
2007-03-02 18:52:09 · answer #6 · answered by Orion 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I feel it is because everyone wants you to "support the troops" but they really just want you to support the war. It would make sense especially if no one cares about the wonded at home!
2007-03-02 18:22:13 · answer #7 · answered by Kelly S 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Yeah I agree that the Liberals should step up to the plate and rally for these guys with their own money like us conservs. And now I hear a pin drop.
2007-03-02 19:06:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Yes things like this do happen. Do you know everything that goes on in your country, state, county, city, neighborhood, or own house? My guess would be, if there is more than one person living there, no! The important thing is to fix what needs fixing. Everyone is not perfect !! Welcome to the real world.
2007-03-02 18:33:45 · answer #9 · answered by da_bears46 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I second that. God bless our troops. "It doesnt matter if you are for or against the war everyone should be for the troops."
2007-03-02 18:21:34 · answer #10 · answered by marinesprincess 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋