JK had an interesting afternoon yesterday. He got to talk with one of the people who financed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear mongers. Why? Because that person, Sam Fox of Missouri, was selected by the administration to represent our country as ambassador to Belgium. I won’t make any editorial comments about the judgment of the suitability of such a person to represent our country. I’ll just pass along some links to the many blog posts and news articles and you can check out what they had to say.

(Update) Swift Boat Financier appointed Ambassador to Belgium. Watch Kerry grill him. – Beachmom’s diary at dailykos had some interesting links and delicious snark in the post and the comments.

“On Team Bush, Scumbags Become Ambassadors” – Bob Geiger on Huffington Post

“Who’s the Next Swiftboat Target?” – globalvillage on Democratic Underground

“BushCo Tries Pulling a Swiftie on the SFRC” – M. Loutre on Culture Kitchen

“Bush nominates Swift Boat funder as ambassador.” – ThinkProgress notes the event

“Bush Nominates Swift Boat Veterans Donor to Ambassadorship” – Crooks’N’Liars outlines how close the Bush administration is to the dirty tricks players.

“Put him on hold, John!” – Tom Negrino at Backup Brain makes a suggestion.

“Swift Boat supporter as Ambassador?” – from a Iraq veteran’s blog, 1st Republic 14th Star

“Bush Nominates Swift Boat Veterans Donor to Ambassadorship” – Trekkie Net Nerds – hmmm, they re-posted Crooks’n’Liars post – Who knew that Trekkies were interested in terrestrial politics?

“No, But Three Rights Make a Left” – Mithras of Fables of the Reconstruction notes that Fox repeated another urban legend as part of his testimony.

“Kerry grills nominee over Swift boat” – kskiska at Democratic Underground

“Kerry Gets Opportunity To Grill Swiftie Backer” – Ron Chusid at Liberal Values blog

“Kerry Fires At Swiftboater” – Bob at Mad in the Middle

And last but not least from the blogs:

“Kerry Versus Swift Boat Benefactor: The Transcript” – Bob Geiger provides the transcript for the interesting part of yesterday’s event though it’s much better to watch and see just how calmly and quietly JK manages his grilling. You can watch it here – click on “Nominations”. Per the instructions in Beachmom’s diary, “The hearing starts 35 minutes in. 1hr33 is where Senator Kerry starts his questions, and 1:51:48 is where he brings up the SBVT “Politics of Personal Destruction”. Also some good remarks by Obama at the end.”   <!-more-> From the news organizations:

“Kerry grills nominee over Swift boat” – Associated Press was the first news organization out with a report on the hearing

“Kerry blasts nominee over Swift Boat contribution” – St. Louis Post-Dispatch – Sam Fox’s hometown newspaper weighs in

“Kerry Puts GOP Donor On Defensive” – Washington Post – the WP also posted the AP article separately under the title “Kerry Grills Nominee Over Swift Boat”

“Kerry criticizes Fox at hearing for ambassador post” – a repeat of the AP article from bradenton.com

Enjoy!

 

The Washington Post’s stories about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center raised the visibility of a topic that others have been persistently following and reporting on. Our military medical and Veterans Administration health care systems are stretched to capacity and beyond in some areas. The VA is scheduled for budget cuts after 2008 despite indications that the need for services is high and going higher.

Let’s start with this item from the Boston Globe about a recent Harvard University study done by Linda Bilmes:

Due to improvements in battlefield medicine and equipment, there are now about 16 “nonmortally wounded” soldiers for every death, far more than the 2.6 soldiers wounded per death in Vietnam, the [Harvard Univerity] study said, citing Department of Veterans’ Affairs data.

The potential costs include medical care, disability payments and other benefits paid to injured veterans and assume that 44 percent of veterans eventually claim disability. That was the percentage of claims from the first Gulf War. [Linda] Bilmes’ calculations assume that by 2016, 2 million soldiers will have participated in these wars.

From a NY Times discussion (subscription) of the study:

About 1.4 million troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and more than 205,000 have sought care from the veterans’ agency, according to the government. Of those, more than 73,000 sought treatment for mental problems like post-traumatic stress disorder.

Large numbers. Note the large numbers. <!-more-> Newsweek has just published its own review of the health care offered to our wounded soldiers:

A NEWSWEEK investigation focused not on one facility but on the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a 235,000-person bureaucracy that provides medical care to a much larger number of servicemen and women from the time they’re released from the military, and doles out their disability payments. Our reporting paints a grim portrait of an overloaded bureaucracy cluttered with red tape; veterans having to wait weeks or months for mental-health care and other appointments; families sliding into debt as VA case managers study disability claims over many months, and the seriously wounded requiring help from outside experts just to understand the VA’s arcane system of rights and benefits.

...

Yet, as the number of veterans continues to grow, critics worry the VA is in a state of denial. In a broad sense, the situation at the VA seems to mirror the overall lack of planning for the war. “We know the VA doesn’t have the capacity to process a large number of disability claims at the same time,” says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard public-finance professor and former Clinton administration Commerce Department official. Last month Bilmes released a 34-page study on the long-term cost of caring for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. She projects that at least 700,000 veterans from the global war on terror (GWOT) will flood the system in the coming years.

In a background piece about the article, Newsweek publicists wrote:

A jump in disability claims in recent years has created a bottleneck. Daniel Cooper, the VA’s under secretary for benefits, confirmed his department was coping with a backlog of 400,000 applications and appeals; 75 percent of them were still within a “reasonable” reviewing time frame, he says. As more servicemen and women return from Iraq, the backlog is likely to increase.

Cooper says the average waiting time for a benefits claim is about six months. But Newsweek turned up a number of veterans who’d waited longer. Patrick Feges, an Eagle Scout from Sugar Land, Texas, who was injured in Ramadi in October 2004, finally got approval last month, 17 months after filing his claim: after Newsweek and the advocacy group Veterans for America began looking into his case, he got a call from a VA official in Waco, Texas, with the news that his claim had been approved. Last week he received back pay to the date of his application.

And then we get to the reporting by the Army Times. If you want to see some clear reporting on the matter, do a search on Army Times and Kelley Kennedy.

Published on Monday Feb 26, 2007, Critics: Army holding down disability ratings

The Army is deliberately shortchanging troops on their disability retirement ratings to hold down costs, according to veterans’ advocates, lawyers and services members, and the Inspector General has identified 87 problems in the system that need fixing.

...

But in the Army — in the midst of a war — the number of soldiers approved for permanent disability retirement has plunged by more than two-thirds, from 642 in 2001 to 209 in 2005, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year. That decline has come even as the war in Iraq has intensified and the total number of soldiers wounded or injured there has soared above 15,000.

While the number of soldiers placed on permanent disability retirement has declined in the past five years, the number placed on temporary disability retirement...has increased more than fourfold, from 165 in 2001 to 837 in 2005.  [...]

Along with paying them reduced wages during that time, the eventual reevaluation often leads to downward revisions in their disability ratings — and lower disability payments.

Only 209 permanent disability retirement ratings given in 2005? Really? After 642 given in 2001?

More from the Army Times on the Inspector General’s report referenced above:

And what about that Inspector General’s report that identified 87 problems that needed to be fixed? It was from a year long probe that found, “inconsistent training for counselors helping soldiers through the system, inadequate record keeping and a failure to follow policy pushed down from the Defense Department,”

The Inspector General, according to Army spokesman Paul Boyce, found inconsistent training for counselors helping soldiers through the system, inadequate record keeping and a failure to follow policy pushed down from the Defense Department — all findings that Army Times has reported on since June 2006.

From the Army Times in June, 2006 comes an article that contrasts the experience of Lt. Col. Mike Parker versus the GAO report of a review of the Army Medical and Physical Evaluation process. Parker’s story and his effort to help others is engaging but here are the basics from the article.

From 2001 through 2004, the number of active-duty and reserve claims made with the Army Medical Evaluation and Physical Evaluation boards nearly doubled from 7,218 in 2001 to 13,748 in 2005

A soldier goes before a physical evaluation board if a medical evaluation board determines he is not able to do his job. The physical evaluation board then determines how much the Defense Department will compensate the soldier.

A report by the Government Accountability Office released in March found that no one is checking the consistency of the boards? decisions ? whether some soldiers? claims are rejected as others with similar disabilities earn benefits, for example.

... In its March report, the GAO pinpointed several problems in the medical evaluation process:

• The Defense Department and the services do not have a consistent system in place to monitor the way cases are handled.

• The services do not have a formal training system set up for the people who help troops through the physical evaluation board process.

• The Army does not keep good statistics on how long it takes to process soldiers’ physical evaluation boards, so it can’t be determined whether they are handled in a timely fashion.

...

[Parker] points out that to receive retirement pay, a service member has to be rated at 30 percent disability or higher. That qualification is important for the monthly stipend, and more important, the lifelong medical benefits.

As you read the stories of individuals who are trying to find their way through the medical eval process, remember that number: 30% disability. It will have critical impact in what ongoing care a wounded soldier will receive.

I want to return to a sidebar article that Newsweek included with its coverage. They held a Q&A with Sen. Patty Murray of Washington who highlighted these points:

The VA, last year, was under-projecting how many men and women would come into the VA system from Iraq and Afghanistan. They expected 45,000 and ended up with over 100,000. Now they are projecting 263,000 Iraq and Afghan vets next year. But we’re hearing from independent sources that the figure will be over 300,000. Without being a budget or numbers guru, you can realize that 1.5 million men and women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and are coming home with everything from minor injuries to cases of TBI [traumatic brain injury], lost arms and limbs, and PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]. You know the number is going to be high. But they seem to want us to believe that the number is going to be lower. Which means we don’t fund VA adequately. ...

We have a backlog of patients that cannot get in. The VA likes to say that everyone gets an appointment within the first 30 days. Great, that’s better than it was. But I come home and talk to veterans who say, sure, after calling three times, 30 days into it, they get an appointment—for nine months later. That just doesn’t cut it. Many of them can’t start working until they’ve had their medical problems cleared. But they are sitting at home for nine months waiting to get into the VA. ...

They don’t have enough people tracking claims, they don’t have enough processing paperwork, they don’t have enough physicians, and therefore they deny care because they don’t have the people to offer it. It keeps the budget down, but it keeps people out of the system.

Looks like there’s some serious work to be done to take care of our veterans. JK will be speaking out about addressing some of those needs today in the Senate. Look for an update here after his statement.

 

Congratulations to Al Gore and the team that brought us the realities of climate change in “An Inconvenient Truth” on their win at the Academy Awards last night. As Vice-President Gore said last night,

``We need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue, We have everything we need to get started with the possible exception of a will to act and that is a renewable resource. Let’s renew it.’‘

If you haven’t seen An Inconvenient Truth yet, here’s more info about the film. It is available for purchase on DVD and widely available for rental from regular video rental outlets.

They also announced last night that the Oscars was a “green” event and together with the National Resources Defense Council, they put together a resource page about environmentally friendly steps people can take.

Here’s a video clip by johnkerry.com blogger GV on climate change which includes a quick reference to John and Teresa’s soon-to-be-released book, “This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future”.

Let me leave you with this thought from the website for An Inconvenient Truth>

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

Sounds like we have all been issued a challenge to which we cannot fail to respond. More information on steps you can take is available at these websites:

• NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)
• StopGlobalWarming.org
• IPCCfacts.org – The facts surrounding the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change

 

Today’s NY Times editorial talks about the diversion of resources from Afghanistan and the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the prosecution of the Iraq war.

The editorial concludes with…

Having failed to finish off Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Washington now finds itself fighting Qaeda-affiliated groups on multiple fronts, most recently in Somalia. Al Qaeda’s comeback in Pakistan is a devastating indictment of Mr. Bush’s grievously flawed strategies and misplaced Iraq obsession. Unless the president changes course, the dangers to America and its friends will continue to multiply.

Reading the editorial brought to mind several items. First, wasn’t this exactly what JK said during the presidential debates in 2004?

During the 1st debate, JK stated:

The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.

The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.

And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don’t take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don’t send troops to war without the body armor that they need.

...

… Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s number one criminal and terrorist.

They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other.

That’s the enemy that attacked us. That’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That’s the enemy that is now in 60 countries, with stronger recruits.

<!-more-> During the 3rd debate:

When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden? ” He said, “I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned. “

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

In his speech at Georgetown University on October 26, 2005, JK warned us again:

We will never be as safe as we should be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we must win—the war on Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the terrorists that are resurfacing even in Afghanistan.

In March of 2006 at a speech about “Security in a Dangerous World” at the University of Ulster in Ireland , JK expanded on the topic of what faces us:

Frankly, we should start by better understanding what we are up against. The war on terror – as it is so often called – even exploited — is really a far bigger challenge than the words suggest. Terror is only a tactic. The bigger struggle we are engaged in is much more than a military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it started long before 9/11. It is, above all, a much more complicated undertaking than some have made it sound. In fact, our long-term security is today as it has always been, dependent on addressing the multi-layered fabric of life which motivates those who use terror.

In his “Dissent” speech given on April 22, 2006 in Faneuil Hall, JK pointed out step by step how current administration policies have fueled Al Qaeda, rather than suppressed it.

The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that’s why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.

Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.

And so there’s the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.

During that same time period, Bill Roggio of The Fourth Rail, started sounding the alarm about Al Qaeda’s resurgence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Roggio (bio) is a veteran and a reporter who’s done 3 rounds of embed, 1st in Iraq in 2005, then in Afghanistan in 2006 and most recently, again in Iraq in Dec. 2006 and Jan. 2007.

In September of 2006, he put together a summary of all the posts that he’s written sounding the alarm about the rise of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan called “The Fall of Waziristan: An Online History”.

What’s the date of the first post in his summary? January 10, 2006, titled “The Waziristan Problem”. Roggio has consistently reported on what’s happening in the Waziristan area of Pakistan throughout 2006. He has continued to maintain this particular blog post as a reference point with links to all of his reporting concerning the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Waziristan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is another valuable reference point for those interested in seeking out information.

On September 14, 2006, JK delivered a speech titled “Winning the Central Front in the War on Terror: Afghanistan” at Howard University:

The President pretends Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. It is not now, and never has been. The truth is, his disastrous decisions have made Iraq a fuel depot for terror – fanning the flames of conflict around the world.

There is simply no way to overstate how Iraq has subverted our efforts to free the world from global terror. It has overstretched our military. It has served as an essential recruitment tool for terrorists. It has divided and pushed away our traditional allies. It has diverted critical billions of dollars from the real front lines against terrorism and from homeland security. It has unleashed dangerous, pent-up forces of radical religious extremism. It has weakened moderate leaders in the Middle East. It has strengthened and played into Iran’s hand. It has diminished our moral authority in the world.

The demagogic drumbeat about fighting terrorists over there instead of here — even though they weren’t in Iraq until we went in, and it’s now a civil war we’re fighting — has compromised America’s real interests and made us less safe than we ought to be five years after 9/11. The true measure of that is the stark fact that worldwide terrorist attacks are at an all-time high and there are now more terrorists in the world who want to kill Americans than there were at the time of 9/11.

After all the tough talk of “Wanted Dead or Alive,” after the Administration bragged and boasted – they meekly backed off in the mountains of Tora Bora. Osama bin Laden escaped because the administration held back the best military in the world – our’s – and outsourced the job to local militias. Since then Al Qaeda has spawned a vast and decentralized network operating in 65 countries. Only Dick Cheney could call this a success.

The situation in Afghanistan deteriorates steadily, squandering the sacrifices of our troops and allies in the military campaign of 2002. The Taliban now controls entire portions of southern Afghanistan, and just across the border Pakistan is just one coup away from becoming a radical jihadist state with a full compliment of nuclear weapons. Only Don Rumsfeld could proclaim this a victory.

...

This is the reality of the world today – a world more dangerous because of the Bush blunders and a challenge far more complicated than the gruff Cheney sound bites. America deserves – our safety depends—on a winning strategy to reverse this dangerous course and make our country more secure.

There are five principal priorities that demand immediate action: (1) redeploy from Iraq, (2) re-commit to Afghanistan, (3) reduce our dependence on foreign oil, (4) reinforce our homeland defense, and (5) restore America’s moral leadership in the world. These “5 R’s”—if you want to call them that– are bold steps Democrats will take to strengthen our national security, and that the Republicans who have set the agenda today resist to our national peril.

...

The central front in the war on terror is still in Afghanistan, but this Administration treats it like a sideshow. When did denying al Qaeda a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority? How did we end up with seven times more troops in Iraq – which even the Administration now admits had nothing to do with 9/11 – than in Afghanistan, where the killers still roam free? Why is the Administration sending thousands more American troops into the crossfire of a civil war in Iraq but we can’t find any more troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan?

You could get whiplash watching the Administration policy on Afghanistan change from day to day. On Sunday, asked which of the 26 countries in the alliance were dragging their feet in Afghanistan, NATO’s top commander General James Jones, a four-star general and former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, replied, “All of them.” Tuesday, Secretary Rice said we’ll “pay for it” if Afghanistan again devolves into a terrorist stronghold. But just yesterday the Administration refused to heed its own warnings and refused to send the troops the commanders on the ground said we needed. That is both a tragedy and a scandal. And today? Silence.

The Administration’s Afghanistan policy defines cut and run. Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man’s land. Cut and run even as we learn from Pakistani intelligence that the mastermind of the most recent attempt to blow up American airliners was an al Qaeda leader operating from Afghanistan. That’s right – the same killers who attacked us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks against America and they’re still holed up in Afghanistan.

There’s more but I’ll let you go back and read it for yourself. I do strongly encourage a second look at Bill Roggio’s reports. And I would be remiss if I didn’t give a hat tip to The Democratic Daily for the terrific resource they’ve provided in their collection of JK’s complete speeches and statements.

But let’s go back to where I started. Remember I said that reading the NYT editorial raised several thoughts in my mind. Here is the first one, and it’s a question for the New York Times editorial board:

What took you so long?

You even had a direct clue from your reporter Matt Bai and his profile of JK in October 2004,

When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America - and certainly in Washington - had been changed by that day. ... What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism … He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists.

 

I must confess that I’m not a baseball fan though having lived in Green Bay, WI for a few years, I certainly have a deep appreciation for passionate fans and how difficult fandom can be when one doesn’t live in the local market any more. I can say that I did cheer for the Red Sox when they finally won their World Series … you know, after so many years, ya gotta cheer for the underdogs and all.

At any rate, JK blogger Beachmom wrote a diary about Major League Baseball’s effort to remove the Extra Innings package from cable tv and offer it exclusively through DirecTV and what it means to baseball fans and one Red Sox fan in particular. I think she summed it up pretty well so I’d like to share an excerpt with you.

—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-——-

First the story:

Baseball TV deal contested MLB is trying to move Extra Innings package exclusively to DirecTV, but there’s resistance. ... For five seasons, MLB’s Extra Innings has offered up to 60 regular-season, out-of-market games a week on cable, through the In Demand service, as well as DirecTV and Dish Network. Under terms of the new deal, DirecTV reportedly would pay $100 million a year over seven years for the rights to the package. In Demand reportedly had offered $70 million a year to retain Extra Innings.

So if you have DISH or cable, you would be forced to switch to DirecTV, or in cases where satellite is not possible, you’re plum out of luck. I think Salon summed it up best:

Dear best customers, Screw you. Love, MLB

Well, fans all over the country are mighty mad: <!-more->

Michael Abramowicz, 34, of Arlington, Va., is a law professor at George Washington University who gets Extra Innings on cable. He talked about the pending deal in a blog last week. “My reaction to this has been genuine sadness,” he wrote. “Watching baseball games is my No. 1 hobby, and my house can’t get DirecTV because of nearby trees. It did occur to me that if I chopped down my neighbors’ trees, I would probably do a year in jail, which would leave me six years to enjoy the games.” Reached by phone Friday, Abramowicz said he would switch to DirecTV to keep Extra Innings if he could. Ryan Hecht, 34, of Queens, a Time Warner Cable subscriber and a die-hard Dodgers fan, is in the same situation as Abramowicz. Reached by phone Friday, he said, “I’d switch to DirecTV if I could, but my landlord will not let me install a satellite dish.”

Folks down in Florida, one of the biggest transplant states in the country, are equally livid:

It is an especially big deal in Florida, where so many people are from somewhere else. More than 5 million customer homes have cable TV service in the state. “Major League Baseball is showing how it really feels about its fans,” said cable customer Ed Shroeder, who lives in central Florida’s Lake County. “It is ignoring all the fans that have moved to Florida. I will no longer be able to watch the Red Sox and Orioles on my cable company, Comcast.”

But one Boston Red Sox fan, who conveniently is a United States senator, wasn’t going to take this, and sprung into action:

One of those already annoyed is a U.S. senator, John Kerry of Massachusetts. He wants to see the Red Sox while in Washington, D.C. “A Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch his team without having to switch to DirecTV,” Kerry said. Kerry took the unusual step of asking the Federal Communications Commission to investigate a deal that has not yet been announced.

But it wasn’t just for himself. Red Sox fans tend to be loud and noisy about their baseball:

Kerry, in his letter, said, “In the case of my hometown team, Red Sox Nation stretches all across our country from coast to coast. I am concerned that this deal … will separate fans from their favorite teams.” Kerry could not be reached by phone Friday, but Vince Morris, a spokesman, said the senator is taking up the fight not only because he is a Red Sox fan but because people had been approaching him, seeking answers. “He wants to find out more facts and find out what the FCC can do,” Morris said.

Two days ago, however, the situation looked grim, with the deal close to being finalized. And, then, suddenly, the FCC has responded and will investigate! Hurrah for baseball fans everywhere (press release from yesterday):

Kerry Gets Promise from FCC to Investigate MLB-DirectTV Deal FCC Chairman gives Baseball 30 day deadline for report WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced today that he has received a commitment from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complete a full investigation of a proposed $700 million television deal that could deny many consumers the ability to watch their favorite teams. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Major League Baseball’s “Extra Innings” package would only be available to people with DirectTV – potentially affecting as many as 50 million American viewers by making it hard or even impossible for them to subscribe to the service. Kerry first raised questions about the deal earlier this month, after hearing complaints from many fans who were concerned that they would suffer if the deal went through. The promise for the investigation came from FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, in a letter to Kerry that was received today. “This is great news and I appreciate the quick response from Chairman Martin,” Kerry said today. “It’s good to know that he also has concerns about a deal that has the potential to deny choice to so many consumers – all apparently in the interest of a short-term profit for Major League Baseball. I look forward to hearing a full response from the league and from DirectTV, and I remain open to working with them and other colleagues on any and all plans that further options for consumers and make it easier for all of us to enjoy our national pastime.” In his letter to Kerry, Martin wrote, “I share your concern regarding this proposed deal,” and promised that once the FCC received a full briefing on the deal, it would report on “the implications for consumers and any recommended changes to the law to ameliorate any harms to consumers.”

It ain’t over, people, but this is a very good development.

—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-——-

Thanks for that wrap-up, Beachmom.

 

The Washington Post reported late last evening that the Senate Democratic leadership is developing a plan to be released next week which will re-shape the US military mission in Iraq and repeal the 2002 AUMF “in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military’s role and begins withdrawals of combat troops”.

The new framework would set a goal for withdrawing combat brigades by March 31, 2008, the same timetable established by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Once the combat phase ends, troops would be restricted to assisting Iraqis with training, border security and counterterrorism.

JK is involved in the formulation of the plan and spoke out:

“I’ve had enough of ‘nonbinding,’ ” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is helping to draft the new Democratic proposal. The 2002 war resolution, he said, is an obvious target.

“The authorization that we gave the president back in 2002 is completely, completely outdated, inappropriate to what we’re engaged in today,” he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) began calling for a reauthorization of the war early last month and raised it again last week, during a gathering in the office of Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Participants included Kerry, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.). Those Democratic senators have emerged as an unofficial war council representing the caucus’s wide range of views.

  <!-more-> This news comes at the same time as military commanders sent a long list of unfunded equipment and reconstruction needs which were denied by the administration in an earlier appropriations request. The Politico reported that the list included armored vehicles and systems that protect against IEDs.

The Army and Marine Corps say they need more than 5,000 armored vehicles, another $153 million for systems that defend against the deadly improvised explosive devices in Iraq and $13 million in language translation systems.

In an annual exercise initiated by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the military service chiefs were asked to forward spending priorities for the new 2008 fiscal year that either Pentagon budget planners or White House budget officials struck from the services’ original requests. Lawmakers use the list to gauge where military commanders see shortfalls and to justify additions to the appropriations.

...

The Army’s $10.3 billion list includes $2.2 billion for 2,500 special vehicles to better protect troops against roadside bomb attacks. The Marines have asked for another 2,700 of the vehicles, totaling $2.8 billion.

The lack of armored vehicles has been a heated topic of debate on Capitol Hill as lawmakers consider a $93.4 billion wartime appropriation to finish the current fiscal year, another $141 billion in wartime funding bill for fiscal 2008, as well as the regular 2008 defense appropriations bill.

We all know JK has spoken out on this topic of inadequate armor and armored vehicles for our troops more than once lately. Today, I’ll quote his rant on the Imus show on Feb. 12th.

You know what infuriates me is front page of The Washington Post this morning, a story about the lack of armored Humvees. These guys going out. They say they won’t have enough of them until the summer time.

What are these guys supposed to do in the next months? Go out there in inadequate protected status?

I just get so angry about that.

Hear, hear, Senator.

It is more important than ever to demonstrate citizen support for the leadership that our Democratic leaders are demonstrating. Here’s one way to do that…

 

 

And now for some history that should probably have been more prevalent in news media coverage and analysis in 2002 and 2003.   JK has repeatedly talked about the importance of understanding the nature of the ongoing conflict into which we have sent American troops. In doing so, he has referred several times to a book by Vali Nasr, titled “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future”.

In the preface to his book, Mr. Nasr recounts an incident that he observed, which I recall as well, observed through the global eye of television. I interpreted it much differently than he did. Unfortunately for our soldiers, our government did not understand the significance of such an event either.

I was on a research trip in Pakistan in April 2003 when two million Shias gathered in the Iraqi city of Karbala to mark the Arbaeen, the commemoration of the fortieth day after the martyrdom of the Shia saint Imam Husayn [Hussein] at Karbala in 680 C.E. ... On that particular “fortieth day,” so soon after the one on which U.S. Marines and jubilant Iraqis had pulled down Saddam’s hollow image in Baghdad’s Firdous Square, I happened to be on the outskirts of Lahore, visiting the headquarters of a Sunni fundamentalist political group known as the Jamaat-e Islami (Islamic Party). The office television set was tuned to CNN, as everyone was following the news from Iraq. The coverage turned to scenes of young Shia men standing densely packed in the shadow of the golden dome of Imam Husayn’s shrine at Karbala. They all wore black shirts and had scarves of green (the universal color of Islam) wrapped around their heads. They chanted a threnody in Arabic for their beloved saint as they raised their empty hands as if in prayer toward heaven and in unison brought them down to thump on their chests in a rhythmic gesture of mourning, solidarity, and mortification. The image was magnetic, at once jubilant and defiant. The Shia were in the streets and they were holding their faith and their identity high for all to see. We stared at the television screen. My Sunni hosts were aghast at what they were seeing. A pall descended on the room.

...The CNN commentator was gleefully boasting that the Iraqis were free at last—they were performing a ritual that the audience in the West did not understand but that had been forbidden to the Shia for decades. What Americans saw as Iraqi freedom, my hosts saw as blatant display of heretical rites that are anathema to orthodox Sunnis. ... “These actions are not right,” said one of my hosts. Iraqis — by which he meant the Shia — “do not know the proper practice of Islam.” The Shia-Sunni debates over the truth of the Islamic message and how to practice it would continue, he added, not just peacefully and symbolically but with bombs and bullets. He was talking not about Iraq but about Pakistan.

So what are these differences between Shia and Sunni and how have they evolved? That’s not something that I can adequately cover here but I can point you toward a few resources that will start you on a journey of understanding that we all should have taken 5 years ago.

Mike Shuster and NPR put together a magnificent series — one of those that NPR does so well with extended focus over a 5 day period on a single topic — which aired earlier this month. The entire series is available by streaming audio and also available for download as a podcast.

It starts with the genesis of the Shia – Sunni divide, covers the incident of martyrdom celebrated in the event Nasr described above, and moves on into more recent history of where the Shias moved to and how they have existed in tension with the Sunni majority up to the present time.

It is expertly narrated by Mike Shuster, with audio clips from live news coverage of events in more recent history sprinkled throughout. Vali Nasr is one of several scholars whose comments are heard throughout the series. The series is called “The Partisans of Ali” — a name which you will better understand after you’ve listened to the series.

After listening to the NPR series, you may find that this Washington Post article, “Across Arab World, a Widening Rift”, adds more perspective to what’s happening across the middle east with regard to the Shia emergence and the reactions by various Sunni institutions and governments. Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post Foreign Service gives us an on-the-ground look at how the recent events are regarded in the largest, most populous Sunni country, Egypt, and how the Shia – Sunni co-existence there has differed from the co-existence in other countries.

Another resource is, of course, Vali Nasr’s book, “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future”, which is available now in hardcover and will be released shortly in paperback. Vali Nasr writes in the conclusion of his book:

It is clear today that America cannot take comfort in an imagined future for the Middle East, and cannot force the realization of that future. ... The lesson of Iraq is that trying to force a future of its liking will hasten the advent of those outcomes that the United States most wishes to avoid. Through occupation of Iraq, America has actually made the case for radical Islam — that ours is a war on Islam — encouraging anti-Americanism and fueling extremism and terrorism. The reality that will shape the future of the Middle East is not the debates over democracy or globalization that the Iraq war was supposed to have jump-started but the conflicts between Shias and Sunnis that it precipitated. In time we will come to see this as the central legacy of the war.

In other words, we have opened Pandora’s box. Let me start you on your learning journey with this thought which Vali Nasr placed prior to the preface of his book.

 

Heed not the blind eye, the echoing ear, nor yet the tongue,
but bring to this great debate the test of reason.

— Parmenides

 

In researching what’s happening with veterans issues and the regular survey of the blogosphere, I’ve found some related items that I want to share. The first item is old but it’s good.

From Ilona Meagher at PTSD Combat blog:

Unutterable: For Reagan it Was AIDS. For Bush, PTSD?

How many times has the Bush Administration uttered the phrase ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ in speeches or remarks archived at Whitehouse.gov? I did a search this afternoon and found not even one document returned.

Why is a disorder that afflicts tens of thousands of our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans unutterable by this administration? And are Democrats also silent on this issue?

To head off any confusion, the question I’m proffering here is: Is PTSD as radioactive to the Bush administration as AIDS was to Reagan’s? I’m not comparing the two illnesses with one another.

She goes onto search Cheney’s record as well as the President’s record and finds no record of them uttering those words. Then she goes onto query the Dem leaders.

Let’s take a look at other leading political figures. Are they as silent as our Vice President - this administration - is on this issue? Or do others speak out more on PTSD? Maybe we’ll find there’s an across-the-board silence on this issue—that should go a ways towards absolving Dick Cheney, won’t it?

How about Senator John Kerry. Is he silent on this issue?

Nope. 67 articles found including:

• Kerry Pushes to Provide Full Benefits to Vets Exposed to Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 04/18/2003 • John Kerry Says America Must Stand By Our Military, 02/14/2005 • Kerry Calls for Investigation into Department of Defense’s Treatment of U.S. Troops, 03/06/03 • John Kerry and Senate Vets Pressure White House To Support Disabled Veterans, 12/02/02

And there are 63 more to choose from. So, John Kerry doesn’t seem to have a problem talking about PTSD. Why does Dick Cheney?

Now, John Kerry’s just one man.

Are there other examples of Democratic officials unafraid of talking about PTSD, too? You bet there are. Feel free and take a look over at ePluribus Media where I’ve collected a number of choice quotes. One examination of them, and you’ll see that the Democratic party walks the walk vs. just talking the talk when it comes to supporting our troops. Because if we’re not willing as a nation to support those troops that are hurting the most, then who are we exactly protecting?

Our silence on the plight of our soldiers and marines returning with post-traumatic stress disorder only protects the very people most directly responsible for sending them to the battlefield. They deserve better than silence from our leaders.

More recently Ilona noted at PTSD Combat: BusinessWeek Covers Unique Struggles of the Reservist-Entrepreneur. She then went on to pull a few significant paragraphs from the coverage including this one:

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chair of the Senate Committee for Small Business & Entrepreneurship, has been working for several years to introduce a Military Family Bill of Rights, a bill that includes comprehensive and direct assistance for military members and their families, including loans, grants, and tax credits for Guard and Reserve members who own their own small businesses or work for one.

Read her whole post here and then check out the complete Businessweek article here. <!-more-> There was a rousing and touching diary last week at dailykos titled “My son’s Humvee needs a FRAG Kit 5 NOW!!”

One of the commenters in the diary noted:

Actually, John Kerry spoke on the Senate Floor

Today about this very issue.

He said there was only one contractor being used to for these Armoring Kits…and there could be more!

He’s been bitchin’ about this for a long time… and no one listens!

I do remember seeing some hearing on c-span talking about this long ago… there were other contractor ready, willing & able to provide these kits, but they couldn’t get the contracts. The excuse was…the administration & Rummy thought we’d be outta there by the time they could make & ship ‘em.

Now, 4 years on…no excuse, and still only one contractor.

I also saw, I think it was just the news…of the soldiers combing the “BoneYard” for parts & armor from humvees that had been blown up.

Shows how our Billions are being spent!

And you know what? He was right and here’s the transcript of what JK had to say which included this gem:

One soldier who dies from a roadside bomb because he doesn’t have enough armor is one too many.

And when it comes to body armor and armored vehicles, our troops are not getting what they need. According to The Washington Post this week, our soldiers are short more than 4,000 of the latest Humvee Armor Kit, the FRAG Kit 5. Fewer than half of the Army’s 14,500 up-armored Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan have the latest equipment.

...People are actually holding bake sales to raise money to send body armor and helmets to the troops. Over a year ago, the Pentagon issued a report that many of the deaths in Iraq caused by upper body injuries could be prevented if all body armor issued to our troops included side armor plates. Some of my colleagues raised this issue with Secretary Rumsfeld, and he assured them that the Pentagon would begin procurement and delivery of an additional 230,000 sets of side armor plates.

But just last month, another Pentagon report found continued shortages in force-protection equipment for our soldiers—a shortage of body armor, a shortage of up-armored vehicles, a shortage of communications equipment, and a shortage of electronic countermeasure devices. We’ve also heard firsthand from troops that many are still being issued body armor without the side-armor plates.

...

By themselves, these shortages are troubling, but the President’s plan to send over 20,000 more troops makes them even more calamitous. And now we hear that the troops pouring into Iraq won’t have enough up-armored Humvees and other armored vehicles until July. How can we send over 20,000 soldiers in now when the armor their lives depend on won’t arrive until July? How can we justify this policy to the mother of a soldier killed in a Humvee without proper armor? How can we explain it to a wounded soldier at Walter Reed whose injury could have been prevented with the right equipment?

There’s more where that came from. Complete transcript here with H/T to The Democratic Daily

Next, there’s today’s entry from KarenDC at dailykos in which she describes the meeting of a group at her house. One of the attendees had the opportunity to speak to JK.

Garrett Reppenhagen is a member of Iraq Vets Against the War and Veterans for America (formerly Vietnam Veterans Against the War). He is working on several fronts, but one of the most important is the work he is doing to find a retreat and treatment center for homeless vets. He is seeking federal and state funds to build the center.

Sitting around the table and talking with Lori, Tina Richards, Liam, and Richard and me, Garrett pointed out, “The soldier is only the bullet. It’s the American people who pull the trigger.”

Garrett met with Sen. John Kerry, who told him “Look, I’ve had 500 people here in my office this week. The other 499 were here for other reasons than the war.”

Why is this? Why are there not 500 people in each office, demanding an end to this nightmare?

The stories of the other people present, Liam Madden, Tina Richards and Lori Perdue (told in an earlier diary) are equally interesting and they offer a challenge to the readers.

Finding out more about Garrett’s story led me to this final item.

Trish Wood, an investigative reporter, recently wrote a book, “What Was Asked of Us: An Oral History of the Iraq War by the Soldiers Who Fought It”, which details the history of the Iraq war through the eyes of those who actually fought in it.

She did a radio interview with C-SPAN radio in which she talked about how her book came about and what it was like to interview the soldiers. Her interview is followed by excerpts of the interviews she did with some of the soldiers whose stories are included in the book.

Very powerful stuff … it does help add depth and perspective to what’s happening. You can listen to it here ... you’ll need realplayer. If that link doesn’t work for you, go to this page and look for the link that says “Listen to Trish Wood from American Political Archive, Nov. 11, 2006”.

And last but not least, here’s one more thing you can do…

 

JK is responding to the story about the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  According to a statement released earlier this afternoon, he is joining with Senators Obama and McCaskill in introducing legislation aimed at improving conditions at the WRAMC. The focus of the proposed legislation is assisting patients in acquiring the counseling and rehabilitation services that they need.

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced today that he will co-sponsor legislation to improve the lives of recovering veterans at Walter Reed and other medical centers by eliminating paperwork and improving physical conditions. Kerry also said he would explore options for directing new funding to Walter Reed and to make immediate improvements to the buildings where veterans are housed.

Kerry said he was “saddened” by a recent Washington Post series exposing poor sanitary conditions and other hurdles faced by injured veterans returning to the states after service in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with a story in the Army Times about 15 month delays facing vets seeking a physical evaluation. The sponsors of the legislation are Sens. Obama and McCaskill.

The legislation that Kerry is co-sponsoring would do the following:

• Simplify the paperwork process for recovering soldiers
• Improve the ratio of caseworkers to recovering soldiers
• Increase the training of caseworkers
• Require more frequent IG inspections of hospital facilities and standards of care
• Establish timelines and benchmarks for repairs to substandard facilities
• Provide recovering soldiers with psychological counseling
• Require regular reporting to Congress on:
  • the total number of recovering soldiers at military hospitals
  • the number of caseworkers
  • the average waiting time for treatment
  • the number of suicide attempts, accidental deaths or drug overdoses

The Army Times published an article today titled “Wounded and Waiting”.

They tell another story of Walter Reed and the Veterans Administration and how they are overwhelmed by telling the story of Pvt. Robert Van Antwerp. The story points out that:

Soldiers go to VA to try for more benefits, but the department had a staggering 400,000-case backup on new claims in fiscal 2006, according to VA.

For that reason, Van Antwerp faces another wait at VA. Cases there have an average of a one-year wait. And this is important because it may take a while before Van Antwerp, who must carry a notebook to remember his daily chores, can make his way back to the work world.

Perhaps more important, many of the soldiers leaving Walter Reed face post-traumatic stress disorder. Studies have shown that if soldiers receive treatment within a year, they fare much better.

Van Antwerp has been a patient at Walter Reed since November 2005. He is one of 704 outpatient soldiers who are injured or ill and are waiting to make their way through the red tape of the medical evaluation board process at the medical center, according to officials there.

  <!-more-> Then they go onto tell the stories of other soldiers at Walter Reed which confirm the information in the Washington Post stories.

In a classroom at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the first sergeant for the medical holding company lined up three soldiers to talk about their experience with the physical evaluation board. Soldiers going through the physical evaluation board process report to the medical holding company for accountability, to be assigned jobs that work with their injuries, and to have a first sergeant and company commander who can speak up for them when they’re having problems.

In August 2004, as Spc. Karl Unbehagan, 29, reported to his new unit at Fort Benning, Ga., he developed intense migraine headaches. Doctors told the infantry soldier he was not used to the humid weather. A couple of months later, they ran a CAT scan.

“I had a tumor in the third ventricle of my brain,” Unbehagan explained, pointing to the shunt that runs from the scar on his head down to his stomach to relieve the pressure in his brain. “They realized it had nothing to do with the weather.”

The physical evaluation board rated him at zero percent, saying the tumor was a pre-existing condition. Unbehagan has been in the Army for four years, and his doctors found no proof the tumor existed before he joined, he said.

Rather than face the civilian world with no benefits, he talked with a free counselor from Disabled American Veterans who told him how to fight the discharge, reclassify as an electronics and satellite repair specialist, and stay in the Army. The process took eight months, which he spent in the medical hold company.

His board was restarted three times: First, his medical profile was lost. Then, somebody forgot to counsel him — a required part of the process. And finally, no one made his file active after he changed his job field, so no one saved him a slot at the repair school, he said.

link to full story

JK spoke out today:

“We owe our returning veterans a debt of gratitude, not sub-standard treatment at an overcrowded medical facility. The Administration has consistently talked a big game but shortchanged the needs of veterans. How can the president talk about a troop escalation in Iraq while failing to keep faith with the Iraq War veterans we’ve already brought home?

Brave men who have been blinded or lost a limb in Iraq should not be sitting in moldy, mouse-infested buildings. Period.

It’s unacceptable and this Congress needs to do something about it.”

Yes, it does and thanks to those taking immediate action to remedy this failure to care for our troops.

 

The Washington Post stories on Walter Reed Army Medical Center have continued. The story which appeared on Sunday stunned many people.

Yesterday’s installment brought more personal stories which reveal a broken down bureaucracy with misplaced priorities and families whose resources are stretched beyond their limits trying to care for their injured family members.

The conflict in Iraq has hatched a virtual town of desperation and dysfunction, clinging to the pilings of Walter Reed. The wounded are socked away for months and years in random buildings and barracks in and around this military post.

The luckiest stay at Mologne House, a four-story hotel on a grassy slope behind the hospital. Mologne House opened 10 years ago as a short-term lodging facility for military personnel, retirees and their family members. Then came Sept. 11 and five years of sustained warfare. ... Two Washington Post reporters spent hundreds of hours in Mologne House documenting the intimate struggles of the wounded who live there. The reporting was done without the knowledge or permission of Walter Reed officials, but all those directly quoted in this article agreed to be interviewed.

<!-more->

...

Here at Hotel Aftermath, a crash of dishes in the cafeteria can induce seizures in the combat-addled. If a taxi arrives and the driver looks Middle Eastern, soldiers refuse to get in. Even among the gazebos and tranquility of the Walter Reed campus in upper Northwest Washington, manhole covers are sidestepped for fear of bombs and rooftops are scanned for snipers.

Bomb blasts are the most common cause of injury in Iraq, and nearly 60 percent of the blast victims also suffer from traumatic brain injury, according to Walter Reed’s studies, which explains why some at Mologne House wander the hallways trying to remember their room numbers.

Some soldiers and Marines have been here for 18 months or longer. Doctor’s appointments and evaluations are routinely dragged out and difficult to get. A board of physicians must review hundreds of pages of medical records to determine whether a soldier is fit to return to duty. If not, the Physical Evaluation Board must decide whether to assign a rating for disability compensation. For many, this is the start of a new and bitter battle.

...

While Mologne House has a full bar, there is not one counselor or psychologist assigned there to assist soldiers and families in crisis—an idea proposed by Walter Reed social workers but rejected by the military command that runs the post.

After a while, the bizarre becomes routine. On Friday nights, antiwar protesters stand outside the gates of Walter Reed holding signs that say “Love Troops, Hate War, Bring them Home Now.” Inside the gates, doctors in white coats wait at the hospital entrance for the incoming bus full of newly wounded soldiers who’ve just landed at Andrews Air Force Base.

The photo slideshow brings the impact home.

Today’s Report

Today’s Washington Post reports that Building 18, featured in Sunday’s report, has received a great deal of attention from the Army and the DOD in the last 48 hours.

The facility’s commander, Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, said Army staff members inspected each of the 54 rooms at the building and discovered that outstanding repair orders for half the rooms had not been completed. He said that mold removal had begun on several rooms and that holes in ceilings, stained carpets and leaking faucets were being fixed.

...

Yesterday, Weightman said a broken elevator in the building had been repaired and soldiers were working to improve the outside of the building, including removing ice and snow. The slippery conditions have kept some soldiers in their rooms. A garage door that has been broken for months will soon be repaired as well.

Spec. Jeremy Duncan, whose room has a moldy wall that was featured in one photograph in the Post series, has been moved to another room while workers make repairs. Duncan will be able to return to his room when the work is completed, Weightman said.

Walter Reed and Army officials have been “meeting continuously for three days” since the articles began appearing, Weightman said. A large roundtable meeting with Army and Defense Department officials will take place at the Pentagon early this morning to continue talks about improvements in the outpatient system, he added.

...

Social workers will now be stationed around the clock at Mologne House, the 200-room hotel on the post where many of the outpatients live. Plans are being developed to better train other staff members who deal with outpatient needs.

We owe our gratitude to Dana Priest and Ann Hull and those who worked with them to bring this story to light. It is good to know that the spotlight of the press will improve conditions in this particular location.

Questions Remain

But questions remain to be asked. Why did it happen in the first place? If these conditions could develop at the premier medical care site of the Army, is it possible similar conditions exist elsewhere? What happens when these soldiers move from the Army’s care to the VA? What is the funding situation for the VA?

How much longer are we going to engage our soldiers in a conflict situation in which there are no winners, only losers?

It is important that we take care of those who have sacrificed their mental and physical well-being on our behalf. And it is vitally important that we set a deadline and stop putting our soldiers at risk.