-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 30, 2007 12:44:06 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Casualties of War Just "Props" in Bush's "Political Theatre"
GENERALS TO BUSH: SOLDIERS NOT PROPS
Posted by Frank James at 1:15 pm CDT
March 30, 2007
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/
general_to_bush.html
A trio of retired generals concerned that President Bush might use
his scheduled appearance this afternoon at the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center to try and score political points against Democrats,
urged the president, via a teleconference with reporters, to focus
strictly on the problems with military medical care.
The generals were spurred into action by news reports that
suggested the president might use the event to take on Democrats as
both sides clash over the Iraq and Afghanistan spending bills just
passed by the Senate and House which include timelines Bush
fiercely opposes for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Some of the pointiest of comments came from retired Army Major Gen.
Paul Eaton who seconded the comments made right before him by
retired Army three-star, Lt. Gen. Robert Garde, who welcomed the
president's visit to Walter Reed, especially if it meant a faster
solution would be forthcoming to the problems there and at other
facilities.
Eaton, incidentally, was known as the "father of the Iraqi Army"
for his work in rebuilding the Iraqi army after the 2003 U.S.
invasion.
Eaton said:
I'm equally happy, Gen. Garde is on target, that the president is
going to visit our wounded soldiers. I'm convinced that he would
honor them more if he would refrain from using soldiers as props in
political theater.
We have a commander-in-chief who does very well when he is
unscripted, unrehearsed and engaging with soldiers. But too often
those who handle his performances try to turn the American fighting
man and woman into a political prop for the scenery.
So I would be very happy to see him do the Water Reed visit more
like the commander and secondarily as an inspector general instead
of as a politician. The inspector general in the U.S. army is the
fellow charged with ferreting out problems such as Walter Reed and
delivering the nature of the problem to the commander. So it is
best that the commander in chief pursue this visit to Walter Reed
as commander in fact of the American fighting man and the American
fighting woman.
Retired Maj. Gen. Mel Montano of the Army National Guard echoed
those sentiments.
I think to use it as a means to discuss the Iraqi supplemental is
an insult to the soldiers and what they did. Because it's political
exploitation as far as I feel. I think he ought to address the
issues concerning their treatment, Walter Reed, etc, etc, etc.
But to take this captive audience that has no choice and use them
as I mentioned to exploit and push this, his disdain of the Iraqi
supplemental vote in the House and the Senate is completely without
foundation. And I think he should know that and that it really
doesn't sit well with the rest of us in the military.
Garde wasn't as edgy in his comments as the other two generals. He
used the opportunity to focus the reporters attention on cuts in
the money being allocated to military medical care and the
outsourcing of certain health services, such as mental health
specialists, who aren't providing the level of care that had been
given by their military counterparts, he said.
I hope the president will focus on the need of these various
medical installations to have adequate funding in the various
operation and maintenance accounts…
Garde mentioned that $650 million in cuts in money to military
medical facilities have been proposed in the fiscal 2008 federal
budget. The cuts are supposed to be made up through increased
efficiencies. Garde was doubtful. He foresaw more service cuts or
deteriorating buildings. He continued by saying:
The surgeon generals have all testified that this will result in a
cut in services at the very time we're highlighting that the
services are inadequate.
As I mentioned in a previous posting, the teleconference was put
together by the Democratic-leaning National Security Network which
is headed by Rand Beers. Beers ran the national-security policy
shop for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Beers isn't a
general but he served in Vietnam as Marine officer.
A reporter asked a question along the lines of how should
"political" be defined. Beers said:
My view on this issue is Walter Reed and the military medical
situation is a serious enough issue deserving quite highly of a
presidential visit and speech to reassure the military, their
families the American people that the social contract between our
government and our people and the people who serve in the military
is in fact if in distress at this point is something that is going
to be taken care of.
And I think it would be disrespectful on the part of the president
to begin to discuss his position on the Iraq supplemental and his
differences with Democrats over that issue in this particular, and
I believe, important setting and important subject which so
obviously needs to be addressed.
Stephen Robinson, who spoke on behalf of Veterans for America, was
also on the call. He tackled the same question about what would
constitute a political appearance by the president.
This system is broke. …We're gettin' great medical care in terms of
amputations, burn care, bullets and bomb wounds. But every other
aspect of it, and the outpatient aspect, is broke. So what I would
like for him to do so it wouldn’t be a political speech is
acknowledge the problems and tell us what he's going to do to fix
them. If he simply says we care about soldiers, he isn't doing his
job.
Robinson said that he was at Walter Reed yesterday where he was
quickly surrounded by a group of soldiers whose discharges were
caught up in the bureaucratic quagmire. So clearly even with all
the attention to date, the problems are far from fixed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Comments
Was there ever any doubt that soldiers are little more than props
to this administration?
Posted by: mikey | Mar 30, 2007 2:28:14 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Why is it that only safely retired Generals have the courage to
question this Administration about anything. For four years our
senior leaders have followed failed tactics without objecting. We
have had four years of humiliating defeat at the hands of
irregulars. With 3,225 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers as
evidence of their failure, our Generals have plodded on. Not one
American senior officer has had the courage to object to our
failure. A "surge" three or four years ago might have had a chance
of success. No General would take a personal risk for his Army or
his Country. They should be hiding in shame, not advising the
hapless Commander in Chief
Posted by: c. perry | Mar 30, 2007 2:30:11 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
I can't understand why this president would, on the one hand,
glorify our soldiers as heroes then neglect seeing to it that they
receive the utmost in medical treatment. I tend to believe that
he's only interested in using them to accomplish his agenda and
then washing his hands of them when they need his support the most.
No American in the military should ever want for anything!
Posted by: Michael Tatom | Mar 30, 2007 2:31:31 PM
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
