A US soldier was sleeping in his own urine at Walter Reed, the wife of a Republican congressman witnessed it and complained, and nobody did a damn thing.
God bless Dana Priest. THIS is what reporting looks like. It's not about being partisan. It's about doing your job, and hopefully making the world a better place at the same time.
Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.
A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.
GOP congressman was rebuffed when he brought problems to the attention of the authorities at Walter Reed:
In 2004, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and his wife stopped visiting the wounded at Walter Reed out of frustration. Young said he voiced concerns to commanders over troubling incidents he witnessed but was rebuffed or ignored. "When Bev or I would bring problems to the attention of authorities of Walter Reed, we were made to feel very uncomfortable," said Young, who began visiting the wounded recuperating at other facilities.
Beverly Young said she complained to Kiley several times. She once visited a soldier who was lying in urine on his mattress pad in the hospital. When a nurse ignored her, Young said, "I went flying down to Kevin Kiley's office again, and got nowhere. He has skirted this stuff for five years and blamed everyone else."
Kiley is now the US Army's Surgeon General. What is this man still doing with a job?
Someone is going to be on the short list for a Pulitzer.
Nothing to see here, move right along. After all, it's only a car bomb killing women and children while they shop. I wonder if Mrs. Bush would say the same thing about women and children being murdered in Israeli shopping malls on a daily basis: that it's only one car bomb a day, so the Israelis should be pretty darn chipper.
According to Salon, Attorney General Gonzales and the Deputy Attorney General both told Senate committees in January and February that the firings weren't political. But today we're hearing from the Washington Post that the evidence is growing that in fact the firings were political.
Now, I'm just going to assume that Gonzales was sworn in under oath when he testified, and we finally may have caught him perjuring himself, since the Democrats have long let it be known that they've had it with Gonzales' never-ending lies while testifying, and in fact the Democrats tried to force Gonzales to be sworn in under oath last year while testifying BECAUSE he's such a liar. So clearly he had to be sworn in, right? Can someone find out if Gonzales was in fact sworn in?
"I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January. In a Feb. 6 hearing, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told lawmakers, "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart."
While the fired U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, didn't say the two members of Congress who called to pressure him were Republicans, he apparently made it sound that way -- and it sure sounds like a GOP tactic. He didn't succumb to the political pressure, then he got fired. Go figure.
This whole issue of the fired U.S. Attorneys is going to get really, really ugly. From the Washington Post:
The fired U.S. attorney in New Mexico says he was pressured by two members of Congress prior to the November elections about the pace of an ongoing public corruption probe that targets local Democrats.
David C. Iglesias -- who is leaving today after more than five years in office -- said he received separate calls in October from two federal lawmakers, whom he declined to identify. Iglesias said he suspects the episode led the Justice Department to include him in a wave of firings of federal prosecutors late last year.
"They were fishing around for information in terms of the status of the investigation," Iglesias said in an interview, referring to the lawmakers. "They were fishing around for a timetable. Those are things I'm prohibited from talking about."
Iglesias said the callers seemed focused on whether indictments in the case might be issued prior to the elections.
"I didn't give them what they wanted," Iglesias said. "That was probably a political problem that caused them to go to the White House or whomever and complain that I wasn't a team player."
Someone isn't telling the truth about this whole mess. And the fired U.S. Attorneys aren't the ones lying.
The special on Bob Woodruff last night was fascinating, and while I was a little skeptical about such a focus on one newsman when tens of thousands of troops are suffering from injuries, the program did a good job of integrating the broader issues into showing a process of recovery for Woodruff that was, frankly, miraculous. The head injury he suffered in an IED attack was so severe, doctors ultimately had to remove 14 centimeters of his skull, replacing it with a "plastic rendition." The footage of him relearning words through his little kids showing him flashcards was heartbreaking, as was much of what his family went through.
Woodruff, of course, got the absolute best available care, and has a massive media outlet through which to talk about his story. Regular readers of this blog know that a huge number of those injured in Iraq are not so lucky. And it turns out, according to Woodruff's reporting, there may be many more injured than the government is reporting:
While the U.S. Department of Defense says that there have been about 23,000 nonfatal battlefield casualties in Iraq, Woodruff discovers -- through an internal VA report -- that more than 200,000 veterans have sought medical care for various ailments, including more than 73,000 diagnoses for mental disorders.
Nicholson plays down those figures, telling Woodruff, "A lot of them come in for dental problems. We're providing their health care."
Woodruff reports that even these numbers may not tell the whole story: According to unreleased data from the Department of Defense, at least 10 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have sustained a brain injury during their service.
The ABC News anchor reports: "That could mean that of the 1.5 million who have served or are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 150,000 people could have a brain injury that may be undiagnosed and unrecognized by the casualty numbers from the Department of Defense."
While everyone with symptoms of a brain injury may not need extensive treatment, Woodruff learns that the Department of Defense is not screening all returning soldiers, despite recommendations from the Defense Department's own Defense and Veteran's Brain Injury Center.
Woodruff says that he and others at ABC News will continue to report on this story because "the human cost of war is sometimes overlooked," and injured veterans "need support that matches their sacrifice."
Certainly some of those numbers are not Iraq casualties, and many may in fact be "dental problems," but I don't think 73,000 mental disorders include any dental work, and it's offensive to hear so many soldiers needing medical care being so easily dismissed. The fact that returning soldiers aren't even being screened for brain injuries -- which are exactly the kind of injury most likely from the vast majority of attacks in Iraq, bombs and other explosions, and which often don't present obvious symptoms but can have crippling long-term effects -- is disgraceful.
Woodruff gets this part exactly right: Injured veterans "need support that matches their sacrifice." I guess this administration disagrees.
If the spirit moves you, please consider making a donation to the blog. This is my full-time job, I pay my daily correspondents/writers/bloggers, we now have $900/month in server costs, tech costs associated with the revamp, and more. Long story short, your donations help make AMERICAblog work. So please use the red box in the right-hand column where you can make a one-time donation in the top box, or a recurring monthly donation (i.e., same amount each month automatically charged to you) via the bottom box. Note that donations are NOT tax deductible. And while you're at it, feed some other blogs you love as well. Thanks, JOHN
"Alva...was a decorated staff sergeant who had served in Somalia and Japan. As troops began to push into Iraq, on March 21, 2003, Alva was leading 11 Marines among 75 or so sailors and Marines in a 50- to 55-vehicle convoy on its way from the desert in Kuwait to Basra, Iraq. It was a logistical convoy moving through the desert at night, lights out, night-vision goggles on. The sand was so kicked up it was nearly impossible for Alva to even keep track of the vehicle in front of him. At one of three stops along the way, Alva, who hadn't eaten for a full day, was heating up an MRE when he went to get something out of his Humvee. 'I took maybe a step or two,' Alva said, 'and that is when the explosion went off.' It was a land mine."
I'm sure it came as a surprise, even a shock to some, that the city official is transgender. But after 14 years of stellar service, this is what one person had to say about him:
Commissioner Mary Gray Black said Stanton's surprise announcement last week "caused stress, turmoil, distraction and work disruption" in the city. His contract says he can be fired without cause at any time.
"I do not feel he has the integrity, nor the trust, nor the respect, nor the confidence to continue as the city manager of the city of Largo," said Black, who introduced a resolution to fire Stanton on Monday.
The integrity? Well, if Largo, Florida wanted to sweep this one under the rug, they just created one hell of a scandal.
Laura Bush, ace Iraq expert, made a little bit of a whoopsie on Larry King the other night. She said that Iraq was really going well, but that the big bad biased liberal media keeps reporting that one attack a day in an effort to make things look bad. Well, seems it's more like 180 attacks a day, and that's just against our troops. There are 50 attacks a day or so against civilians, making that 230 attacks a day. Looks like Mrs. Bush may have to return her PhD in Counterinsurgency.
Attacks against coalition forces in Iraq averaged nearly 180 a day in January, the highest level since major combat operations ended and more than double the rate one year ago, according to intelligence officials.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday said the attacks matched the previous high, set in October 2006.
Attacks on civilians also reached a new high, with almost 50 per day in January, according to the agency. Attacks on Iraqi Security Forces remained consistent with recent months, at about 30 a day.
In all fairness to Mrs. Bush, she really mentioned "one bombing a day." Though we're clearly hearing about more than one bombing a day against civilians and our troops, and let's not forget to add in helicopter shoot downs and more. And in any case, if a shopping mall or a university a day were getting blown up in the US, would Mrs. Bush reassure us that it's only one a day? And speaking of comparisons with the US, Iraq has less than one-tenth the population of the US, so "one bombing a day" - and let's be clear, what she means is "one suicide bombing a day" - would be equal to 10 suicide bombings a day in the malls and universities and kids' soccer fields of America.
Doggone socialists have all of the choices while the free market US economy has only two options. Sounds a lot like the old Soviet days when the Lada offered either with or without a radio. So where are all of the so-called free market Republicans? Oh that's right, they've been on the "let industry dictate policy" bandwagon and made sure they were lending a helping hand with the Soviet-ization of Big Auto, ridding them of any need to offer fuel efficiency. Who could ever forget Reagan starting the removal of fuel efficiency standards and then the Gingrich Congress implementing the final blow to any hope of minimum standards? Once again, witness Republican economics at work and try hard to figure out how it differs with Soviet style economics.
The research from the Civil Society Institute, a not-for-profit think tank that focuses on energy and ecological issues, shows a growing “fuel-efficient car gap.”
CSI found that the number of vehicle models sold in the United States that achieve combined gas mileage of at least 40 miles per gallon actually has dropped from five in 2005 to just two in 2007 — the Honda Civic hybrid and the Toyota Prius hybrid.
Overseas, primarily in Europe, there are 113 vehicles for sale that get a combined 40 mpg, up from 86 in 2005. Combined gas mileage is the average of a vehicle’s city and highway mpg numbers.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that nearly two-thirds of the 113 highly fuel-efficient models that are unavailable to American consumers are either made by U.S.-based automobile manufacturers or by foreign manufacturers with substantial U.S. sales operations, such as Nissan and Toyota.
The debate by some is that the European cars are using diesel which is dirty, though the new breed of diesels are much cleaner so relying on that excuse is no longer valid.
Plenty of mixed messages in the Asian markets with most of the trading down and China slightly up. The question today is whether this is a correction or the start of a downward trend. All of that said, we use the word "bubble" for a reason and bubbles do not last forever. As for the US market, the economics of funding a war with tax cuts and selling the debt to a bubble economy is certainly a novel idea and one that will no doubt be a case study in econ classes in the future.
Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases....
Army officials say the two brigades will be as ready as any others that deploy to Iraq, even though they will not have the benefit of training in counterinsurgency tactics at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., which has been outfitted to simulate conditions in Iraq for units that are heading there on year-long tours.
Right, they're not missing out on anything important on their way to fight Iraq's insurgency - other than their counterinsurgency training.
This is a weird story. Earlier today, a blast near a soccer field in Ramadi kills scores of children. Also today, apparently, the US military conducted an explosion near a soccer field in Ramadi that hurt a bunch of children. But the US military is saying the deadly attack couldn't have happened, because they'd have known about it. At the same time, both of these attacks sound awful similar - like they may be the same explosion, i.e., one we caused.
A car bomb exploded Tuesday near a park popular with young soccer players, killing at least 18 boys in [Ramadi] a city west of Baghdad known as a center of the Sunni insurgency, police said.
And here's the blast the US military caused in the same town near a soccer field, injuring kids:
The U.S. military said its soldiers had carried out a controlled explosion in Ramadi, near a soccer field, that wounded 30 people, including nine children.
But here's where it gets stranger. The US says they can't imagine the deadly attack is real since they weren't aware of it:
Iraq's government and police said a bomb blast near a soccer field in the western city of Ramadi on Tuesday killed 18 people, mostly children, but the U.S. military said it was unaware of such an attack....
"I can't imagine there would be another attack involving children without our people knowing," said Major Jeff Pool, a spokesman for U.S. forces in western Anbar province. The wounded had cuts and bruises, he said [referring to the explosion the US caused near a soccer field].
So, is the attack that killed the children "real" or didn't it happen at all? And if it real, is it the SAME explosion that US caused, and if so, did we also kill children and no one is telling us?
So who owns this economy? What brain trust thought that Guns & Butter II would somehow work better than the original which sunk the US into an economic quagmire for years? Let's remember that there have been voices out there who have criticized this administration for waging war while handing out tax cuts to the wealthiest and just running a tab on China's expense account so now that China is stumbling and the war debt is increasing, this most recent fiasco falls squarely in the hands of the Bush administration. When the other shoe drops and the real estate bubble bottoms out, it will be another fine mess these clowns got us into. Republican economics in action, also known as the perfect storm.
The House Republicans must be desperate for funds. Clearly, they're really desperate for money because, despite criticism from both progressives and right wingers, the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) is keeping donations made by one of their major contributors, Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari. According to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Alishtari was arrested "on attempt charges of terrorism financing, material support of terrorism, and international money laundering, as well as additional charges of conspiracy and wire fraud." Despite that, the House Republicans are keeping on to Alishtari's contributions.
The news that U.S. forces arrested a close relative (reports have varied, some saying son and others saying nephew) of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is infuriating for a number of reasons. Last week we arrested a convoy of people traveling from Iran to Iraq, which sounds to me like an intelligence tip-off rather than a random operation. There is a huge amount of traffic between Iran and Iraq, so to coincidentally go after a group that includes an extremely influential member of SCIRI, a leading Shia political party, seems unlikely. It's also unlikely that we knew it would include Ammar al-Hakim, judging by his swift release and subsequent official apology, so I'd be very curious to know how the operation was established.
However it happened, it is yet another clear sign that our executive and military leadership has no idea how to handle Iraq, either tactically or strategically. We can't identify people, we don't recognize political or tribal affiliations, and it's impossible to trust intelligence tips when there's a good chance they're being used to settle scores. In this case, we couldn't even figure out whether we were sorry or not -- Ambassador Khalilzad apologized but the military defended
