BS: Bushites finally support troops...

Subject: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:53 PM

Well, well, well...

One thing that has come out of the Dems takin' control of Congress is that the Bushadministartion and its followers are now having to act as if they actually support the troops...

Yeah, afetr years of them tryin' to pin the Dems with the party that doesn't support the troops the recent Washington Post articles on just how Walter Reed has become a hell-hole for the troops is forcing the Bushites to put their money where their mouths have been...

Good... About time... No, way past time!!!

Ain't nuthin' like a little oversight...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:31 PM

The British are also having difficulty with the problem of wounded soldiers. Seems the best way is to 'sweep them under the carpet'. Pretend it isn't happening so that nobody gets the blame. Eventually, the injured will be counted but, of course, the fall-out from post traumatic stress will never be acknowledged. Some will call it lack of planning, I call it lack of concern.


"A year ago, a parliamentary answer put the number of British servicemen and women wounded in Iraq at 794. Last Wednesday afternoon, The Observer was sent figures by the MoD claiming that 177 British men and women had been wounded as a result of hostile action in Iraq. Shortly after midday last Friday this had changed again when Reid announced that in fact this figure was 230, including 40 very seriously injured. At least 11 are known to have lost limbs. The previous figure of almost 800 was suddenly 'withdrawn' and would 'never be used again'. Sources from the MoD struggled to explain the sudden discrepancy, saying only that previous figures were invalid. But the new data raised their own questions, omitting as it did, the fact that 3,800 UK personnel had been hospitalised after being airlifted from Iraq without any detailed explanation of their condition. As Reid said: 'It depends upon the definition of casualty.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1692263,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:37 PM

"Ain't nuthin' like a little oversight... "

That's just the problem - there has been too much 'oversight'... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:57 PM

The American count of wounded is about 24,000. One would expect the British count to be proportionally equal. If you have the numbers you can do the math I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:28 PM

A "hell-hole" eh? Could this possibly be rhetoric?

How many Hospital buildings are in Walter Reed and how many of them are a "hell-hole" Bobert?

I had to take a neighbor to WRAMC for brian cancer treatments. Her husband was ex Army. I didn't see any flames or pitchforks, just a whole bunch of buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 06:06 AM

That's Dickey Bobert for ya!

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:55 AM

I guess you haven't been keepin' up with the Walter Reed stroy, Dickey...

Oh sure, one ***can*** get excellent treatment there depending on who ***one*** happens to be...

Unfortunately, our troops, while gettin' very good medical treatment are being asked to live in a dilapidated old motel that is full of mold and in poor condition...

I've seen short srticles over the last couple of years about the poor living conditions of our wounded troops in various facilites around the country but the Walter Reed story and the TV news pictures realy bring the story into focus...

I'd think that, seein' as you seem to be gung-hoo on the war an' all, you, Dickey, would certainly have a greater concern for our wounded brothers and sisters... I guess not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM

Two years ago my wife took my late father-in-law* to the main hospital at WRMC. His appointments were in the 60s ward, on the 6th floor. Because of the number of people and a shortage of elevators, they stopped each time on the 5th floor. Specifically, outside Ward 57 -- where the amputees are treated.

Each time he was angry, very angry. He thought that the facilities in general were a disgrace and the number of amputees were too great for the number of medical personnel available.

You also have to remember that WRMC is on the list of bases to be closed...why spend money getting the rats out of a building you're going to tear down? And if THAT sounds cynical, you're right -- the developers in DC are all but drooling on the floor about the WRMC property coming available.







*retired as a full colonel, served 35 years. WW2, Korea, Vietnam. Landed at Normandy on D+21 as a member of SHAEF Forward, liased with the French and Belgium undergrounds for SHAEF, Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes offensive), Battle for Germany, etc. etc. etc. That is to say, he'd seen the elephant....

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

IT was around 2004 when the White House proposed a budget that called for the virtual closure of Walter Reed Hospital. It was not clear if it was to be reclocated out of town but the budget cut was real enough. So were the other veteran benefit cuts.

Eleanor Holmes Norton decried the closure of WRH and the last hospital in red lined ghetto ravaged SE Washington DC.

Can you really blame Bush?
After all he had already declared an end to magor hostiliteis in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:11 PM

Bobert:

Weather someone gung-hoo on the war or not is not a license for someone else to use rhetoric to try to escalate some issue for libs to use as a reason the be anti-war.

What do you know about Walter Reed other than what you have read in a left wing newspaper? Maybe some buildings are bad but that does not make the place a hell-hole no more than slums in a city make it a hell-hole.

I agree that this is not a good thing and it is good that it was exposed and something is being done. But it is not a hell-hole and blaming it on "Bushites" is not logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:35 PM

I've lived in the USA, Dickey. There ARE no left-wing newspapers in that country. ;-) Just Right/far-right/and center-right. You guys live in a dreamworld strictly of your own creation, believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM

Dickey - What do you know about Walter Reed Hosp.? Perhaps you can provide a glowing account of what is happening to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan when they return wounded and/or in need of counselling?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:18 PM

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility

By Dana Priest and Anne Hull
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 18, 2007; Page A01

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. 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.


From the Washington Post you like to quote, Dickey.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:26 PM

"Priest said the project has been one of the most satisfying she has ever done because of the "overwhelming response." It was immediate. Within 24 hours, the military was painting rooms, killing roaches and mice, removing mold -- and paying attention to the bureaucratic problems that wounded soldiers faced. Members of Congress called for special investigations, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates named a panel of experts to make recommendations. He also fired Gen. George W. Weightman, commander of Walter Reed, on Thursday, the same day Priest and Hull had a Page 1 story saying top Walter Reed officials had been hearing these complaints for more than three years. On Friday, President Bush ordered a comprehensive review of care, and Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey resigned."

Took the story to get things happening. Lovely bunch of folks, dontcha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

I have been to Walter reed and I have worked there in several different buildings. I have seen worse conditions in nursing homes. Of course you can't loose a war by bitching about nursing homes.

I agree that this is not a good thing and it is good that it was exposed and something is being done. But it is not a hell-hole and blaming it on "Bushites" is not logical.

My neighbors life span was extended may years by the treatments she got at Walter Reed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:36 PM

Trust you or trust many reporters and vets. Tough decision here, Dickey.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM

"But it is not a hell-hole and blaming it on "Bushites" is not logical."

What an asinine remark. You have just said that the Bush administration--one of whom is the Commander in Chief of the US Militaries--is not responsible for his troops. Way ta go. Another brilliant thought from a guy who doesn't know what name he posts under.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM

Posted 8/25/2005 8:51 AM     Updated 8/26/2005 9:17 AM

Walter Reed Army Medical Center selected to close
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where seriously wounded soldiers have received care since 1909, was recommended to close by the federal base closure commission.

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission voted 8-0 Thursday to consolidate Walter Reed with the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.

Thursday was the commission's second day of deliberations on the fate of 33 major bases and more than 700 others the Pentagon recommended be closed, reduced or expanded. Along with Walter Reed, the Washington area was further affected as the commission voted to shift more than 20,000 military and civilian defense jobs from leased office space in Washington's Virginia suburbs near the Pentagon to military bases farther from the capital.

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., and other Northern Virginia politicians had argued that many workers would quit rather than commute to new locations, but the Pentagon said it was an essential security move in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The commission also voted Thursday to close the Brooks City-Base in Texas, home to the School of Aerospace Medicine. Tang, the orange drink created for astronauts, was developed at the base in the 1960s. The medical school would relocate to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

While the panel voted to consolidate a number of training and personnel facilities around the country, the Walter Reed decision was the commission's highest-profile move Thursday. That change would split the hospital's 5,600 employees between a new Walter Reed hospital in Bethesda and another hospital at Fort Belvoir, Va., south of Washington.

Fixing Walter Reed would cost too much money, said Anthony Principi, the commission's chairman.

Consolidating Walter Reed with the Bethesda hospital would cost more than the $989 million estimated by the Pentagon, Principi said, but it was worth doing to provide "world-class health care."

The commission's recommendations will go to President Bush. He will send them to Congress, which has 45 days to reject the whole list without making changes. If Congress doesn't act, the changes become law.

This is the fifth round of base closures, following others in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. Congress has never rejected the list of proposed closures.

If approved, the changes would occur over the next six years. The Pentagon hopes this round will save $48.8 billion.

The most politically sensitive base remaining on the closure list is Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. The base is the state's second-largest employer.

Last year, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., defeated Sen. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, in part because of claims that he and a Republican president would protect Ellsworth. (Related story: Base-closing plan angers Republicans)

The Pentagon recommended closing the base anyway, along with a half-dozen Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve Bases across the USA. The commission is scheduled to vote on Ellsworth today.

On Wednesday, the panel had breezed through proposals to shutter hundreds of small and large facilities in all corners of the country, moving ahead of its schedule.

Although the commission, like previous panels, has followed most of the Pentagon's recommendations, it has not been a rubber stamp.

On Wednesday, the commission bucked the Pentagon by voting to keep open two large Navy bases in New England — saving 12,000 jobs — and the Red River Army Depot in East Texas.

The four military branches maintain a few large bases in the Northeast while operating a large contingent of installations in the South, including many of the Army's most important combat and training bases.

Contributing: Wire reports

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM

Posted 8/26/2005 1:10 AM

Base-closing plan angers Republicans

By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A Defense Department plan to close hundreds of facilities that it says are obsolete has infuriated prominent Republican lawmakers at a time when their support for President Bush's Iraq strategy could be more critical than ever.

"I think they are going to have trouble with some of us," says Rep. Ray LaHood, a veteran Illinois Republican fighting to save a National Guard base. A protégé of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., LaHood called the base closing process being finalized this week "as bush league as I have ever seen."

The president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "should have paid a lot more attention to those of us who supported them in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to answer specific charges about the base-closing list. He defended it, saying the base closure process "was designed in a way specifically to remove many of the political concerns that surround it. We support that process."

The congressional criticism comes as the Bush administration is trying to maintain support for an increasingly unpopular war. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll earlier this month, 54% said going to war in Iraq was a mistake, the highest since last summer.

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) was created in 1988 to take politics out of the process of shuttering military facilities in the United States. This year's hit list included facilities in the states and districts of some key White House allies and that has made some angry:

• Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., fighting to save thousands of defense jobs in the northern part of his state, said the Pentagon's way of picking facilities was "rigged" to mirror Rumsfeld's priorities: "I feel very strongly that some of these actions were never envisioned by those of us who put the law together."

• Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a key swing vote on several issues, said she believes the Pentagon targeted two installations in her state (one of which BRAC decided to keep open) because of "a bias in the military in the Northeast." She said the process left her less inclined to trust the Pentagon's decision making "without question."

• Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., serves on the House Armed Services Committee and spent the last two months trying to save more than 8,000 jobs at a historic naval base in his district. The commission spared the Naval Submarine Base at New London, but Simmons is still irked that it was a target.

"I think I have been a good soldier," says Simmons, who faces a tough re-election campaign next year. "So you can imagine my shock on May 13 when the only base in my state, which happens to be 10 minutes from my house, was on the list."

Fueling Republican resentment: The feeling that political favoritism was allowed to influence decisions during the last round of base closings in 1995, when Democrats were in charge. At the time, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota persuaded President Clinton to take Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota's second-largest employer, off the chopping block.

"I told him how critical this was to me," Daschle said Thursday. "I think it did make a difference that I had access to him."

Republican John Thune defeated Daschle last year and said he'd be in a better position to protect Ellsworth because he and Bush are in the same political party. However, the freshman senator wasn't able to keep the Pentagon from targeting the base again this year.

"I'm extremely disappointed in what in my view was the secretary of Defense's poor judgment," Thune says.

Under the federal law that created BRAC, Congress and President Bush must either accept or reject the recommendations in their entirety — no picking individual bases. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said there may be an attempt to reject the final list, but doesn't believe it will succeed.

Hutchison doesn't believe anger about base closings will affect Rumsfeld with Congress, but thinks a sixth round of base closings won't be authorized. "There is a bad feeling about the process," she says.

Contributing: Dave Moniz

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM

Dickey,

Havin' grown up in Northern Virgina during a time when there were lots of service people living in the same neighborhoods, I had lots of opportunities to visit Walter Reed... My next door neighbor, who unofficially who flew U-2 spy planes, got stomach cancer and spent a good portion of his last few months at Walter Reed and my mom and his wife would drag all us kids over there just about every day for an entire summer's vacation... That waas a lot of Waletr Reed...

But over the years I've been there dozens of times visiting folks who were there for various ailments...

But really, it wouldn't matter much if I'd been there or not 'cause that isn't what this thread is about, is it, Dickey???

So given that the thtread isn't about me, why are you trying to make it about me??? Hmmmmmmm??? Could it be that you find attackin' me is the first thing that comes to your mind rather than try to defend the Bush administartion's 6 year history of screwing over out troops???

One thing fir sure, you have become a 1st class one trick pony...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:43 PM

pdq - In spite of the volume of material that you have posted to this thread, I fail to find your point.

Perhaps you can provide an answer to this: Was Walter Reed, ..."closed, reduced or expanded?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:49 PM

Well, pdq, these are two different issues... Closing Walter Reed would have been a mistake with all kinds of negative reprecussions to an area where there are a lotta service people... What, would you expect them to drive 125 miles south to the VA hosipat in Richmond 'er 80 west to the one in Martinsburg, WV???

But this isn't the issue at hand... What we are talkin' about here is negligence on the part of Bush administration, it's Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of the Army just to point out a few...

But it goes even beyond the problems in Building 18 where the conditions were apalling... Yeah, what we find not too far beneath the "Support the Troops" crap that Bushites have been throwin' around to institutional neglect in creatin' a buarucratic maze for disabled service people to navigate that for the most part is not navigatable... That, my friend, is not way to support the troops... Meanwhile, many of the folks have become depressed and suicidal from the stresses of seein' their families have to declare bankruptcy and seein' their wives and kids evicted for non payment of rent becuase the $$$ just wasn't there... This is even worse than the conditions because the Bush folks have known about these things yet until the Dems came to power and could apply some oversight the Bush folks couldn't have cared less as they built more and more stumbling blocks for our troops...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:50 PM

The important issue here is that Bush cares nothing for the troops he sends into battle to quell his so-called insurgency.

He is suffering from a psychological disorder of a narcisstic nature that makes him unable to empathize with other human beings. It's a manifestation of his addictive behavior which was never checked by a reliable therapist.

This explains the Walter Reed debacle succinctly.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 05:19 PM

No "liberal" group, this:

Statement from The American Legion Regarding Walter Reed Army Medical Center

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 20, 2007 - Every American serviceman and woman wounded or injured in the line of duty deserves the absolute best care, under the best circumstances, for as long as necessary to effect a complete recovery. Certainly, according to the Washington Post, it appears that those military men and women assigned to Building 18 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are not receiving that level of care.

The American Legion is giving those allegations the utmost priority and is investigating conditions at Walter Reed. Our professional staff will prepare a comprehensive and documented report of its findings and will release those findings to the cognizant committees in Congress and the US Army.

Under no circumstances will we be satisfied with less than a full and immediate resolution of the problem alleged.

or this group (statement of March 2, 2007):

WASHINGTON—The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) has called upon Defense Secretary Robert Gates to take immediate action to provide decent, sanitary housing for recuperating soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and to consider moving them to Department of Veterans Affairs facilities closer to their homes.

In a forceful letter to Secretary Gates, DAV National Commander Bradley S. Barton expressed the organization's concerns raised in articles published by the Washington Post about the appalling living conditions for wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan while they undergo outpatient care and discharge and medical retirement out-processing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The articles document benign neglect affecting hundreds, and over time, thousands, of soldiers at what has often been touted as the Army's premier medical treatment facility.

       "If the Defense Department can't or won't provide our injured soldiers with the decent living conditions they need and deserve, they should be given the option of moving to VA facilities closer to their homes where they can receive top-notch health care and rehabilitation services that will improve their quality of life," said Commander Barton.

The VA is well-suited to provide services to these soldiers and already has agreements in place with the Defense Department to care for military personnel. There are hundreds of soldiers being treated today at VA poly-trauma centers and other medical facilities as inpatients and outpatients.

Barton also noted that the VA consistently sets the benchmark for patient satisfaction, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index developed by the University of Michigan Business School. The Institute of Medicine has recognized the VA as one of the best in the nation for its integrated health information system. And a comprehensive study by Harvard Medical School found that federal hospitals, including those run by the VA, provide the best care available anywhere for some of the most common life-threatening illnesses.

And now, goddamn them all, the Bush budget increases the VA's budget for 2008, flattens for 2009, and declines year-by-year from then on. Yes, the WW2 vets are dying like flies and Korean vets aren't far behind, then the 'Nam dudes. But the assumption is that there will be no new needs in the future! The Iraq brain injuries and maimed will simply vanish!

And by the way, the American Legion AND the DAV are both taking the proposed budget for the VA to task, as they should. I'm sick and tired of this abrogation of responsibility -- send 'em out with flags waving and shouts of "Huzzah!", hurt them, and forget about them.

GO to a VA hospital sometime. VISIT with the men and women there -- the spinal injuries, the ones without jaws, the ones without eyes, and worse....

Then, Dickey-bird, you can tell ME about it. And yes, I **AM** a veteran...PMOS of 11B40.



       "Keeping our wounded soldiers on outpatient status in sub-standard living conditions for months or years is disgraceful and demeaning. No wonder many of them feel betrayed and abandoned by a government that claims to support our troops while leaving them to languish in moldy, vermin-infested housing," Barton said.



       "The brave men and women who have served and sacrificed for our nation deserve to be treated with dignity and respect," Barton said. "It is a travesty to treat them this way when there are much better options available."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:26 PM

No Scarcity Of Suitors For Walter Reed Site
Complex Is Coveted For Its Location, Size

By Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 23, 2005; Page E01


The Pentagon's proposal to close Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest Washington could touch off intense competition for a rare prize: more than 100 acres in a city where real estate values are soaring and space for new development is scarce.

Barely a week after the Pentagon said it planned to close the 96-year-old hospital between Rock Creek Park and Georgia Avenue, real estate brokers, D.C. planners, developers and politicians were laying claim to the property, a sign of the complicated discussions that ensue when the federal government pulls up stakes.

The 113-acre complex is in the middle of an increasingly affluent neighborhood convenient to downtown and also is near the burgeoning commercial area of Silver Spring -- factors that argue for dense residential, retail or office development. But it is also a historic place, where war heroes and presidents have recuperated, and its redevelopment could trigger a preservation fight. And as a federal property, its decommissioning as a military hospital would be governed by tight restrictions, such as that the campus must first be offered to other government agencies.

D.C. officials and neighborhood residents also would want a say.

"What's attractive about Walter Reed is its size," said Thomas R. Maskey, a senior vice president at Peterson Cos., a Northern Virginia developer of mixed-use projects. "There's not 113 acres anywhere around here that's going to be available. The size allows you to do a lot of different things that can really have an impact."

With congressional review of the Pentagon's base-closing plan ahead, it could be years before Walter Reed closes, and it may not happen at all if local officials succeed in blocking the proposed transfer of hospital staff to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda and Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County. And it could take years more before a plan for the property took shape.

"There's a lot of legwork that has to be done before you can break ground and start redeveloping a site," said Tim Ford, executive director of the Association of Defense Communities, a nonprofit group that tracks base closings and redevelopments across the country. "Just getting the land from the federal government is tough."

The Washington region is no stranger to the federal government rearranging its land use, but the aftermath isn't always consistent.

The Cameron Station military base in Alexandria was quickly redeveloped into a mostly residential neighborhood after it was closed in the late 1990s. The District, in contrast, has been in a protracted debate over the fate of the federally operated and largely defunct St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Southeast. The 40-acre Southeast Federal Center was turned over to the District -- sort of. It is being redeveloped as a new headquarters for the Transportation Department, with some of the property slated for a private housing, retail and office development.

Walter Reed, based on its size, history and location, would probably pose an even more complicated development problem. Ford said that when the military vacated its prime piece of real estate in San Francisco's Presidio, for example, there was a "constant battle" among residents, developers and D.C. officials before a compromise was reached to keep part of the 1,480-acre site as parkland and use other parts for commercial space.

Developers said there would be no shortage of interest or ideas for the Walter Reed campus, which brokers said is worth $80 million to $100 million.

Developer John Shooshan of Arlington, who has done office buildings and housing projects, said that because Walter Reed sits in a mostly residential area, bordering Rock Creek Park, it could be developed into a combination of single-family homes, condominiums and apartments...

                                                             more here

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:33 PM

Yeah. Funny about them developers, all slobbering to get their hands on the WRMC property....

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:47 PM

pdq, would you kindly stop shouting? Larger fonts in bold-face don't make what you post any more credible. It just looks like you're trying to outshout everyone else.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:53 PM

See? I can do that, too!

So let's not start a font-war, okay?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

The issue of closing down Walter Reed is a red herring...

This thread ain't about red herrings but if anyone wants to start one, feel free...

No, this thread is about the crappy care our wounded vets are gettin' at Walter Reed... And its about how their families are having to scramble financially because our vets have been gettin' the royal run around in tryin' to get their claims settled...

Seems that this war will go down as the war where the Bushites were doing the spittin' on the vets...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:14 PM

Save Walter Reed Medical Army Center,
A National Resource
This interview appears in the July 1, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

INTERVIEW: JOHN R. PIERCE, M.D.

Dr. Pierce, Colonel Medical Corps, U.S. Army (ret.), has been the Medical Inspector for the Veterans Health Administration since November 2004. He was on active duty in the U.S. Army Medical Corps for 30 years, stationed in Hawaii, Germany, Colorado, and Washington, D.C. His assignments included Chief, Department of Pediatrics, Residency Program Director, Deputy Commander for Clinical Services, and Director of Medical Education—all at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He also served as Consultant in Pediatrics to the Surgeon General for seven years.

An Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and a Fellow in the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Pierce has numerous publications in the area of infectious diseases in the neonatal, health-care services, and practices in the Department of Defense and the role of pediatricians in the military. As the historian for the Walter Reed Society, he has written many articles on the history of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the life and work of Maj. Walter Reed. He also wrote a book on yellow fever and the role of the U.S. Army in its conquest.

His military awards include the Legion of Merit (three awards), the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal (three awards), the Army Achievement Medal (four awards), the Surgeon General's "A" Proficiency Designator, and the Order of Military Medical Merit.

Dr. Pierce was interviewed by Pam Lowry.

EIR: On May 13, the Pentagon made the astounding proposal to close the doors of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. How did this come about?

Pierce: There was a Congressional mandate in the early 1990s to close and consolidate bases. This cycle of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) started in 2002. There were several Joint Cross-Service Working Groups. The Army's representative to the medical group was Major General Kenneth Farmer, who was the Army Deputy Surgeon General at the time. Last year, Major General Farmer was named Commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

EIR: The Working Group's report recommends that new multi-million-dollar hospitals be built at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and at Fort Belvoir, Va. It says that most of Walter Reed's functions will be transferred to the new building in Maryland. Will these hospitals be built, and what will happen to Walter Reed in the meantime?

Pierce:This is like throwing Walter Reed on the scrap heap. Even if the Bethesda hospital is built, building at Walter Reed will be ignored for the next five years. They will start to close Walter Reed down. Doctors who need specialized training and many of the medical researchers may choose to go somewhere else. Employees will leave, and patients, knowing they'll lose their doctors, will go someplace else. The place could go to pot.
                                                         


                                                          more here

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:25 PM

pdq - What is your point?

Anyone can google Walter Reed and cut and paste.

Are you saying that the hosp. and other military bases are closing to make money off the real estate to finance the war; indifferent to the suffering of the servicemen and their families?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:33 PM

If he's not saying, dianavan, I am.

No, Bobert. I think that the crappy treatment and crappy facilities are part and parcel of the attempt to close WRMC. "Why spend the money to fix it? They're gonna close it anyway...."

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:38 PM

Oh, and not to finance any war or anything else of the sort. To make money for the developers and fast movers -- and the DC area is full of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:52 PM

"Larger fonts in bold-face don't make what you post any more credible."

But they Do make the amount ot text copy/pasted from another site that will 'fit onto one screen' far less ...


Be thankful for small mercies Don...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:54 PM

"Why spend the money to fix it? They're gonna close it anyway...."

Thanks, Rapaire. You nailed it.

BTW, why is a suitable replacement for WRMC not finished by now. Perhaps it should nave been started between JAN 1993 and JAN 2001. Same could be said about the fixing levees in New Orleans, or maybe...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:06 PM

Ummmm, not to burst any bubbles here but if I were a betting man I'd say that Walter Reed is safe for from the developers... at least for a while but...

...hey, is anyone here saying that the vets are being given the bum's rush by the Bush administration becuase of pressure from developers???

I didn't think so an' for the record...

...D.C. has it's handsfull with development right now... The downtown Convention Center was 'sposed to clean up the area from like 5th to 9th streeets up to Rhode Island... That ain't happened??? Where is all the developer cash??? This area is prime an' there ain't no developers steppin' up to the plate...

And now there is the new baseball stadium down near the Navy annex and that's gonna open up another area fir the developers so I'd say that fir the forseeable future Walter Reed will be right where it is...

Now back to thwe subject at hand which is why the Bushites now are all that concerned with the troops???

Why weren't they intersted last year before the election???

BTW, the Congressional hearins begin this week so this thread is bound to get more and more interestin' as the week goes on...

Bound to be another bad week to be a Bushite...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:34 PM

The problem for me is how the Bush administration wanted to close down a facility they are relying very heavily on to handle the overflow of the wounded. Regardless of the quality of the care at Reed, what would have happened if the administration had succeeded in closing it down? Where would these hundreds of wounded be?

The lack of foresight or planning by the Bush administration is frightening. These were the same people who were going to put all our B-1s in a big hangar in Texas by closing down Ellsworth AFB in North Dakota. Right. Let's put the entire fleet under one roof where a single terrorist attack or one good Katrina-sized storm could wipe it out wholesale.

Let's close down a medical facility where we are desperately seeking every available space to house a growing number of wounded. What is this administration doing??

Then I also like how Bush is getting his photo taken with victims of the tornado last week. There he is in the news hugging these two young white ladies in this fatherly manner. But when they're black people whose city was ravaged by the worst hurricane in history he literally just ignores them. When it's white people in the Midwest, he's right there with open arms--using them to try and up his sagging poll numbers.

What a scumbag.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:42 PM

At least he's not MY President - but we've got Little Fascist Johnny, who thinks he's ours...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:45 PM

WRMC was to become part of Bethesda Naval Hospital -- where the Uniformed Services Medical School is located. Fine, okay -- the cost of the new buildings was to be about US $800,000,000.

For the buildings. Unfurnished. No equipment. Nothing but the buildings.

Bobert, you've lived around DC long enough to know that when land is made available someone's gonna try to grab it. ESPECIALLY land located on the edge of upscale Montgomery County.

Frankly, I don't think that the Administration any longer gives a damn for the soldiers, sailors, and air crews....

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

I don't think the Administration ever did give a damn for the troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:27 AM

"you have become a 1st class one trick pony"

So it's about me now? Am I a stereotypical Bushite now?

The only thing I said about Bobert was his rhetorical use of the term   hell hole was unwarranted.

I say there are many building there. Some old some newer. I remember working in the newest one. They had some fangdangled new automated cooking system in the kitchen that retrieved food from the walk-ins by robotic carts.

Plus I did work in older buildings at WRAMC, NIH and Forrest Glen, Bethesda NMH, Saint E's (a real hoot), Old Soldiers Home etc. If some of the buildings are dilapidated, when the dilapidation occur? Evidently this was an ongoing problem in some buildings for years. When did the Bushites swoop in and run it down?

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 03:22 AM

"When did the Bushites swoop in and run it down?"

Dickey, a little wear and tear is to be expected but lets face it, when you are sending your soldiers to do battle, you should probably prepare your medical facilities for the wounded, regardless of how old and dilapidated they are.

You either build new hospitals or you repair the old. There is no in between.

Lack of planning seems to be running rampant in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 04:58 AM

I know they tried to plan it, but I suspect they never really expected George to win anyway - and they still haven't recovered from the shock...

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:29 AM

Yes, Dickey. I've been to all of those places and more.

FWIW, my wife's family has lived in the DC area (Maryland and the District) since the late 17th Century. You might say that they really KNOW the DC area, that they've "seen 'em come and go." And they've clued me, a simple kid from the Gread Midwest, into the local political shennaigans that occur there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 09:50 AM

The USA did not expect the casualties it received. Recall that word was they'd be in and out within a short time. Just like the Gulf War. Just didn't turn out that way.

"On January 11, 2007, the Pentagon discarded the time limit that prevented Guard members and Reservists from serving more than 24 total months on active duty for either the Iraq or Afghan wars. The Pentagon's announcement came in the wake of President Bush's decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

The escalation contradicts the advice of top U.S. military officials. Although the majority of Americans are opposed to the "surge," most members of Congress are reluctant to block the supplemental appropriations request that will fund it, claiming that they don't want to abandon the troops. Congress has abandoned the troops for nearly four years. It is the soldiers, their families, and the people of Iraq that pay the human costs. The tab so far: more than 3,000 dead U.S. troops, tens of thousands of wounded, over half a million Iraqi casualties, roughly 250,000 American servicemen and women struggling with PTSD, and almost 60,000 military marriages that have been broken by this war. Including mine."

From here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:09 PM

How can this be, Peace, that the Bush administartion didn't expect this number of casualties... There were a lot of military generals who seemed to forsee what has happned...

And, okay, lets jus' admit that Bush was (and still is...) a moron and thought that Iraqi's, after generations of tribal warfare, would welcome the US led invaders as heros and formed a perfect little countery with a mailbox on every corner and Suzie Creamcheeze Ali skippin' down the sidewalk with her cocker spaniel... But that din't happen... No mailbox... No heros... No dog... No little girl...

But what did happen was that Buish was wrong in firing the generals who saw the real world and kept the dreamer generals along with dreamer Rumsfeld an'... well the caualties started addin' up and the letters to congressmen started pouring in from wounded vets and their families askin' "Where's the support???"

Bush has had ***time*** to make the adjustments just not the ***will***...

Kinda reminds me of the way in which he handled Katrina in stickin' his head in the sand and wishin' all that stuff would sinply just go away...

Well, if one word describes Bush's life to date it's "AWOL"... And he has certainly been AWOL (yet again) on supporting the troops...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM

In addition, the biggest instrument in maintaining control of the populace, with its pent-up hatreds, was deliberately and idiotically disbanded (the Iraq standing army) by Rumsfeld despite the best recopmmendations of those on the ground, which just doubled the problem right out of the box. Instead of being our retainers, the disowned officers and provates were thrown out to merge in with the population and use their skills against us in support of indigenous hatreds betweens ects.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM

Bush was an idiot in 2000 and again in 2004. The voting public has much to answer for, too. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM

I like what somone sent me: Bush. Like a rock. Only dumber.

Subject: RE: BS: Bushites finally support troops...
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM

Only half the voting public, Peace! :D Less than that for 2000.




A