Walter Reed 'looks bad' for Bush administration

[Tiger Al 0]

HUME: I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled. The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help. But make no mistake about it, this was a — there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded…

VIDEO

No, Brit. The problem shouldn't be that it LOOKS bad, but, that it IS bad. According to Brit, it only LOOKS as if troops are being neglected.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I believe everything Bush has done so far looks bad on him and America.

[aumd03 2]

HUME: I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled. The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help. But make no mistake about it, this was a — there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded…

VIDEO

No, Brit. The problem shouldn't be that it LOOKS bad, but, that it IS bad. According to Brit, it only LOOKS as if troops are being neglected.

The VA system and army hospitals have been bad for a number of years. This isn't a new thing. Its been that way before hte Bush administration. Talking to physicians I know, going back as far as the Carter administration things have been bad, at least with the VA system. The only bright spot is a nationalized system of medical records.

I'm not saying don't fix it, but this is someone trying to place a target on Bush when it simply isn't deserved. Clintin, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter all deserve some of the blame if anyone wants to place blame.

[drewau02 0]

I believe everything Bush has done so far looks bad on him and America.

Of course you believe that everything that Bush does looks bad on America. You believe this for many reasons.

You've hated Bush from day one. You believe he "stole" the election from Al Gore back in 2000. You believe that he didn't do enough to protect this country from 9-11. You believe his 8 months in office prior to 9-11 has more weight than Bill Clinton's 8 years. Conversely, you believe that Bush has done too much to protect this country since 9-11 and has ruined the reputation of America in the process. You believe that he lied about WMD, despite the fact that Bill Clinton, George Tenet(appointed by Clinton), the United Nations, and everyone with half a brain said that Sadaam had WMD's. You probably believe that he "blew up" the levees down there in New Orleans, despite the fact that the state and local authorities had 40 years to fix the problem. You believe that his 6 years in office has caused global warming to accelerate, resulting in more hurricanes and tornadoes. Should I continue? You're a smart guy, you probably get my point by now.

Beleive it or not, I'm not even a big Bush fan. Yes, I am a conservative but Bush has let me down in many areas. There are a few reasons not to like the guy. Some of which include No Child Left Behind, out of control government spending, the increase in the size and scope of government since Bush took over back in 2001, and his pathetic excuse for an immigration policy. And yes, I do believe that we should have closed the damn borders before we invaded Iraq. But then again, that's me. I'm only one man's opinion.

The gist of my argument is this. Liberals hate Bush for all the wrong reasons. There are many reasons not to like the guy, but liberals never argue these points. They argue points where disgruntled conservatives like myself feel inspired to defend Bush, even if we are somewhat disappointed in him.

In regards to Walter Reed. Liberals weren't so incenced about the conditions there in the 90's, which were just as bad back then, when Bill Clinton was "cutting our military to the bone."

What about in 94 when Clinton sent our boys into Haiti to "assuage" a revolution with no body armor and only pistols to defend themselves? Please, and you want to talk to me about Walter Reed?

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, this is kind of like the levees in New Orleans. Decades of incompetence and malfeasance just happened to reach critical mass on his watch.

Besides, GWB doesn't need this to make him look bad. He's done that on his own. Aside from the current economy (which I'll give him his props, in the interest of fairness), almost every other major initiative of his presidency has been bungled in one way or another.

[aumd03 2]

I find it humorous how if things happen on Bush's watch then its automatically his fault, regardless of whether it was an issue before his administration. New Orleans was given money to explore upgrades to the levees but they chose to spend that money trying to lure more casinos to New Orleans.

I agree Bush hasn't been a great president. I just agree with drew and say place blame where it should lie.

What programs did Clinton have that were overwhelming successes? Curbing terrorism? Maybe avoiding genocide in Bosnia? Or how about handcuffing our troops and sending them into hostile territory in Somalia for sake of political save face?

I guess staining blue dresses, defining sexual relations and what "is" is are successful initiatives.

[Tiger Al 0]

LINK

[drewau02 0]

I'm new to the political forum here but I'm starting to undertand TigerAl's MO. Instead of arguing points, he jost posts links to columns.

Why would I read anything written by the Washington Post? No thanks, I'll read the NY Times first.

TigerAl, when the Washington Post becomes a little more on the objective side, then I'll give credence to the columns that paper contains. Until then, I'll stick to Roll Call, probably one of the most fair and accurate source of news in DC.

How many times can these fools envoke Vietnam? I swear to God, these freeks are so obsessed with Vietnam, it's almost like they want this country to relive that nightmare over and over again.

And you wander why people say that the liberals in this country are invested in our defeat.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm new to the political forum here but I'm starting to undertand TigerAl's MO. Instead of arguing points, he jost posts links to columns.

Why would I read anything written by the Washington Post? No thanks, I'll read the NY Times first.

TigerAl, when the Washington Post becomes a little more on the objective side, then I'll give credence to the columns that paper contains. Until then, I'll stick to Roll Call, probably one of the most fair and accurate source of news in DC.

And you wander why people say that the liberals in this country are invested in our defeat.

Well, the reason for the link to the WaPo column was to help the knee-jerk, defend-Bush-at-all-cost people like you who seem to think this thread was a commentary on Bush's handling of the misery at Walter Reed. The problems there are not ones that can be laid on previous administrations, which, had you bothered to read the article, you would have seen.

In my original post, the only person to talk about Bush was Brit Hume, and that was to make the moronic statement that what's going on there 'looks bad' for the administration. Brit, and Fox, are knee-jerk, defend-Bush-at-all-cost people, too. What's going on there IS bad and it's bad for the servicemen and women and their families.

How many times can these fools envoke Vietnam? I swear to God, these freeks are so obsessed with Vietnam, it's almost like they want this country to relive that nightmare over and over again.

Twice. Over six pages.

Along with the government promises, the American public, determined not to repeat the divisive Vietnam experience, has embraced the soldiers even as the war grows more controversial at home. Walter Reed is awash in the generosity of volunteers, businesses and celebrities who donate money, plane tickets, telephone cards and steak dinners.

One outpatient, a 57-year-old staff sergeant who had a heart attack in Afghanistan, was given 200 rooms to supervise at the end of 2005. He quickly discovered that some outpatients had left the post months earlier and would check in by phone. "We called them 'call-in patients,' " said Staff Sgt. Mike McCauley, whose dormant PTSD from Vietnam was triggered by what he saw on the job: so many young and wounded, and three bodies being carried from the hospital.

Maybe you should read it BEFORE you criticize it.

[channonc 466]

Why would I read anything written by the Washington Post? No thanks, I'll read the NY Times first.

Well, considering they broke the story on the conditions at Walter Reed and Walter Reed's outpatient buildings, I would consider them to be a pretty good source on the subject.

[Tiger Al 0]

Why would I read anything written by the Washington Post? No thanks, I'll read the NY Times first.

Well, considering they broke the story on the conditions at Walter Reed and Walter Reed's outpatient buildings, I would consider them to be a pretty good source on the subject.

Evidently, the Washington Post is no longer on the approved reading list. I guess we have Woodward and Bernstein to thank for that.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I believe everything Bush has done so far looks bad on him and America.

What about in 94 when Clinton sent our boys into Haiti to "assuage" a revolution with no body armor and only pistols to defend themselves? Please, and you want to talk to me about Walter Reed?

What about right now and the 6 previous years? The guy they fired was there six months. What about spending money on our troops instead givng tax breaks to corporations to move jobs overseas? Heck, it's the corporate interests that fuel the speculation and lies on the intelligence that led to the Iraq War anyway, so let them sacrifice. How about Bush taking a pay cut and giving it to one military family that lost a husband and father? He sure doesn't deserve a paycheck, especially forever. How about republicans voting down a pay raise for themselves and givng the unused funds to the troops? How about allowing injured troops to relax in the atmosphere of my White House for about a year and locating the Bush family in a triple wide on the White House lawn?

These are just a few sacrificial suggestions coming form a US Army veteran.

[drewau02 0]

I'm new to the political forum here but I'm starting to undertand TigerAl's MO. Instead of arguing points, he jost posts links to columns.

Why would I read anything written by the Washington Post? No thanks, I'll read the NY Times first.

TigerAl, when the Washington Post becomes a little more on the objective side, then I'll give credence to the columns that paper contains. Until then, I'll stick to Roll Call, probably one of the most fair and accurate source of news in DC.

And you wander why people say that the liberals in this country are invested in our defeat.

Well, the reason for the link to the WaPo column was to help the knee-jerk, defend-Bush-at-all-cost people like you who seem to think this thread was a commentary on Bush's handling of the misery at Walter Reed. The problems there are not ones that can be laid on previous administrations, which, had you bothered to read the article, you would have seen.

In my original post, the only person to talk about Bush was Brit Hume, and that was to make the moronic statement that what's going on there 'looks bad' for the administration. Brit, and Fox, are knee-jerk, defend-Bush-at-all-cost people, too. What's going on there IS bad and it's bad for the servicemen and women and their families.

How many times can these fools envoke Vietnam? I swear to God, these freeks are so obsessed with Vietnam, it's almost like they want this country to relive that nightmare over and over again.

Twice. Over six pages.

Along with the government promises, the American public, determined not to repeat the divisive Vietnam experience, has embraced the soldiers even as the war grows more controversial at home. Walter Reed is awash in the generosity of volunteers, businesses and celebrities who donate money, plane tickets, telephone cards and steak dinners.

One outpatient, a 57-year-old staff sergeant who had a heart attack in Afghanistan, was given 200 rooms to supervise at the end of 2005. He quickly discovered that some outpatients had left the post months earlier and would check in by phone. "We called them 'call-in patients,' " said Staff Sgt. Mike McCauley, whose dormant PTSD from Vietnam was triggered by what he saw on the job: so many young and wounded, and three bodies being carried from the hospital.

Maybe you should read it BEFORE you criticize it.

I'm not "defending Bush at all cost". Read my earlier comments. I said that I wasn't a big Bush fan myself. Unlike you and bottomfeeder, I am not a blame Bush at all costs person either. If you're gonna sit here and criticize Bush about the conditions at Walter Reed, fine, but be objective. Blame Clinton and Bush Sr. for not upgrading the conditions at Walter Reed either. Clinton did nothing but downsize our military for 8 years. Did you expect the army medical facilities like Walter Reed to be exempt from all those cuts?

I'm just sick of people like you who blame Bush for all of your problems in the world, yet you hold no previous administration accountable for their conduct either. Is Bush responsible for the conditions at Walter Reed? Absolutely. Is Bill Clinton to blame? Absolutely. Both men were in a position to do something about it and did nothing.

Envoking Vietnam twice over two pages is two times too many.

We have several military hospitals in this country and around the globe. These facilities are top notched and have some of the finest rehabiliatation doctors in the world. If you're gonna slam Bush for Walter Reed, then fine, but credit him for some of the other fine military hospitals that this country has.

I don't read the Washington Post because they are nothing more than a glorified liberal think tank. They are not objective, and they have a liberal agenda, as does the New York Times. Do you think they ever report on some of the fine military hospital facilities this country has? My guess would be no.

[drewau02 0]

Why would I read anything written by the Washington Post? No thanks, I'll read the NY Times first.

Well, considering they broke the story on the conditions at Walter Reed and Walter Reed's outpatient buildings, I would consider them to be a pretty good source on the subject.

And Matt Drudge broke the story about the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair. Did you libs give him any credibility? No. The conservative blogosphere broke the story about Dan Rather and the forged documents memo about President Bush's National Guard Service. How much credibility did you give them? That's right, none.

[drewau02 0]

I believe everything Bush has done so far looks bad on him and America.

What about in 94 when Clinton sent our boys into Haiti to "assuage" a revolution with no body armor and only pistols to defend themselves? Please, and you want to talk to me about Walter Reed?

What about right now and the 6 previous years? The guy they fired was there six months. What about spending money on our troops instead givng tax breaks to corporations to move jobs overseas? Heck, it's the corporate interests that fuel the speculation and lies on the intelligence that led to the Iraq War anyway, so let them sacrifice. How about Bush taking a pay cut and giving it to one military family that lost a husband and father? He sure doesn't deserve a paycheck, especially forever. How about republicans voting down a pay raise for themselves and givng the unused funds to the troops? How about allowing injured troops to relax in the atmosphere of my White House for about a year and locating the Bush family in a triple wide on the White House lawn?

These are just a few sacrificial suggestions coming form a US Army veteran.

Thank you Al Franken for another slew of liberal talking points.

"What about right now and the 6 previous years?" I wish that you libs would have envoked the previous six years when you guys were so busy blaming Bush for 9-11, and yet failed to point out Bill Clinton's abysmal record against terrorism the "previous 6 years".

"What about spending money on our troops instead givng tax breaks to corporations to move jobs overseas?" When the Bush tax cuts passed both Houses of Congress back in either '01 or '02, every American who pays federal income tax got a tax break, you, me, corporations, Joe Dirt, etc. We do have a good economy as a result. Low inflation, low unemployment. By the way, the tax cuts did get this country out of a recession. You fail to mention that in your diatribe. These evil corporations you so despise create jobs, jobs that your fellow veterans take when they retire from the Army. Did you know that a lot of former military people went to work for Halliburton after they got of the army, navy, etc.? Hell, Veterans get first preference for jobs in many of those "evil corporations" you so despise. By the way, tell the IRS to condense their tax code from 100,000 pages, making it easier for corporations to do business in America, and adopt a flat tax or fair tax policy. Give corporations some incentive to do business in America.

"How about Bush taking a pay cut and giving it to one military family that lost a husband and father?" Okay, let Bush take a pay cut. He can afford to do so. Then again, how do you know that money taken from his "pay cut" will go to the military families? You may consider writing the House and Senate Appropriations Committee on that idea because they have the purse and are responsible for where our tax dollars go, including presidential pay cuts.

"How about republicans voting down a pay raise for themselves and givng the unused funds to the troops?" I'm all for it. I would also like to suggest that your rich liberal friends like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi do the same thing. After all, they have the majority in both houses now and can probably pass a piece of legislation similar to what you suggested.

"How about allowing injured troops to relax in the atmosphere of my White House for about a year and locating the Bush family in a triple wide on the White House lawn?" I wouldn't be diametrically oppsed to some of our troops "chilling out" in the White House. After all, they've earned the right to do so. If you want the White House opened then fine. But tell your liberal buddies like Al Gore and John Kerry to open up their mansions to the troops as well. Heck, their mansions are much bigger than the White House.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

They're all crooked. I'm sick of the whole damn thing. Fire them all and replace them with ordinary American citizens. No lawyers though. And bulldoze K Street.

[drewau02 0]

If you liberals really support the troops as you claim, then support their mission in Iraq. It's a real detriment to their morale when they see and hear that 70% of the American people don't support what they're doing over in Iraq.

You claim to be patriotic. You become outraged when a conservative dares to question your patriotism. Yet, your dissent from this war, your constant harping on every decision Bush makes, your constant comparisons to Bush to Hitler, etc. only give fuel for the enemy's fire.

If you're so pissed about Walter Reed, then support their mission over in Iraq, give the political process in Iraq time to develop, and then we can bring them home sooner rather than later, and most of our men in uniform will have no need to go to Walter Reed because they will be back hom healthy, safe, and sound.

I just wish you people had the same vitriol for Osama bin Laden and Al Quiada. Maybe you do but I rarely hear it.

[Tiger Al 0]

HUME: I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled. The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help. But make no mistake about it, this was a — there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded…

VIDEO

No, Brit. The problem shouldn't be that it LOOKS bad, but, that it IS bad. According to Brit, it only LOOKS as if troops are being neglected.

The VA system and army hospitals have been bad for a number of years. This isn't a new thing. Its been that way before hte Bush administration. Talking to physicians I know, going back as far as the Carter administration things have been bad, at least with the VA system. The only bright spot is a nationalized system of medical records.

I'm not saying don't fix it, but this is someone trying to place a target on Bush when it simply isn't deserved. Clintin, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter all deserve some of the blame if anyone wants to place blame.

I've worked in several Army hospitals and all have been very good, in my opinion. What is 'bad' about them?

VA hospitals have had a poor reputation in the past, but, recently several studies have given it high marks. Here's an article.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

HUME: I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled. The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help. But make no mistake about it, this was a — there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded…

VIDEO

No, Brit. The problem shouldn't be that it LOOKS bad, but, that it IS bad. According to Brit, it only LOOKS as if troops are being neglected.

The VA system and army hospitals have been bad for a number of years. This isn't a new thing. Its been that way before hte Bush administration. Talking to physicians I know, going back as far as the Carter administration things have been bad, at least with the VA system. The only bright spot is a nationalized system of medical records.

I'm not saying don't fix it, but this is someone trying to place a target on Bush when it simply isn't deserved. Clintin, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter all deserve some of the blame if anyone wants to place blame.

I've worked in several Army hospitals and all have been very good, in my opinion. What is 'bad' about them?

VA hospitals have had a poor reputation in the past, but, recently several studies have given it high marks. Here's an article.

Well then, by your logic Bush has to be responsible for these good things. Are you prepared to give him props, or just blame him for the things that aren't so perfect?

[Captain Liger 0]

HUME: I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled. The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help. But make no mistake about it, this was a — there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded…

VIDEO

No, Brit. The problem shouldn't be that it LOOKS bad, but, that it IS bad. According to Brit, it only LOOKS as if troops are being neglected.

The VA system and army hospitals have been bad for a number of years. This isn't a new thing. Its been that way before hte Bush administration. Talking to physicians I know, going back as far as the Carter administration things have been bad, at least with the VA system. The only bright spot is a nationalized system of medical records.

I'm not saying don't fix it, but this is someone trying to place a target on Bush when it simply isn't deserved. Clintin, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter all deserve some of the blame if anyone wants to place blame.

I've worked in several Army hospitals and all have been very good, in my opinion. What is 'bad' about them?

VA hospitals have had a poor reputation in the past, but, recently several studies have given it high marks. Here's an article.

Well then, by your logic Bush has to be responsible for these good things. Are you prepared to give him props, or just blame him for the things that aren't so perfect?

Ouch.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Oh, I already know his answer and what his little vaudeville dummy out in Texas will parrot also .

I just want to read their words.

[Tiger Al 0]

HUME: I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled. The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help. But make no mistake about it, this was a — there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded…

VIDEO

No, Brit. The problem shouldn't be that it LOOKS bad, but, that it IS bad. According to Brit, it only LOOKS as if troops are being neglected.

The VA system and army hospitals have been bad for a number of years. This isn't a new thing. Its been that way before hte Bush administration. Talking to physicians I know, going back as far as the Carter administration things have been bad, at least with the VA system. The only bright spot is a nationalized system of medical records.

I'm not saying don't fix it, but this is someone trying to place a target on Bush when it simply isn't deserved. Clintin, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter all deserve some of the blame if anyone wants to place blame.

I've worked in several Army hospitals and all have been very good, in my opinion. What is 'bad' about them?

VA hospitals have had a poor reputation in the past, but, recently several studies have given it high marks. Here's an article.

Well then, by your logic Bush has to be responsible for these good things. Are you prepared to give him props, or just blame him for the things that aren't so perfect?

I don't think I've assigned blame anywhere.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Real conservatives can see through all of the fog produced by the right wing war machine.

http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.a...=&sExpire=1