So This Is What Accountability Looks Like?
We all know that, for better or worse, appeals to support our troops these days are as politically expedient and ceremonial as ever. The Washington Post’s intrepid reporting on the “squalid living conditions for some outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] and bureaucratic problems that prevented many from getting the care they need” has shed light on the Bush administration’s own unevenly choreographed “support” for soldiers during a time of war.
Now, however, the Bush administration’s own cynical use of the “support the troops” mantra is in full bloom for all of us to see. Last week, the administration, through Army Secretary Francis Harvey, fired Major General George Weightman from his leadership post at the flagship military hospital in less than two weeks after the Post’s probing series of stories were published.
(According to today’s Post, Weightman’s replacement, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, may even be more culpable since he was in charge until 2004 and has been an outspoken critic of the Post’s original reporting on Walter Reed.) Now, Bush has ordered the creation of a bipartisan commission to review conditions at military and veterans’ hospitals across the country. He will also devote his Saturday morning radio address to this issue.
Oh, so this is what accountability at the defense department is supposed to look like? (Never mind the perversely belated recent finding by the Pentagon’s inspector general about the “inappropriate” manipulation of intelligence that originated in the Defense Department.) Why weren’t heads being rolled and bipartisan commissions being ordered as early as spring 2004 when Seymour Hersh and 60 Minutes broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal story, or
when, later that year, soldiers complained directly and quite publicly to Secretary Rumsfeld about inadequate equipment and underprotected combat vehicles?
The Bush administration now has shown to the world that it does indeed play the bloodiest kind of politics. Many critics already sensed that this administration was eager to reinterpret Clausewitz’s celebrated maxim that war “is a continuation of politics by other means.” Now, with the firing of General Weightman, the whole world and can see their game plan in plain sight.
It's simple. You go war with the out-patient services you have.
And we should note that Cheney has promised that the conditions will be improved and that the "federal bureaucracy" -- the presumed cause of this scandal -- will not be allowed to prevent the Administration's efforts.
March 5, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember a time back in the 80s when I saw for the first time how vacuous 'taking responsibility' can be. It was either the attack on the Marines in Lebanon, which, if I remember correctly, Reagan was accused of over ruling the military who didn't want to place them there to begion with, or it was Iran/Contra. Whichever it was, Reagan came on national TV, addressed the issue and said he took full responsibility; and then a strange thing happened; nothing. Reagan didn't lose his job, he wasn't forced to take a pay cut, he wasn't given disciplinary time off, all the things that people in the real world suffer if they f**k up. Nothing happened to him, but he was praised for "taking responsibility." Another empty gesture.
I don't know how many times I've seen this example of empty gestures by Government officials since Reagan, all too many times, I'm sure.
Over 3,000 died on 9/11. Has anyone in the CIA or FBI taken any responsibility? Been disciplined? Lost anything?
George Tenent received a Presidential Medal.
March 6, 2007 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, sadly, this is exactly what accountability looks like in Washington D.C. There will be hearings where congress can bloviate and posture, even though these conditions have existed for years and an accounting of them has been in every GAO report for years, available for every person on the armed services committees to read and they live in Washington D.C. and could have dropped in any time they chose. (And you have to wonder why anyone sitting on such a committee wouldn't visit the facilities for which they were responsible, I would have just to have some background on what it is I am supposed to be knowlegible about, but that's just me.)
There will be commissions to study the conditions and make recommendations which will never be implemented because no one cares and no one will ever be appointed to make sure they will be implemented, even though they know what is wrong and how to fix it and they've known for a long time.
Articles about these conditions have been appearing in the media for several years now - articles about the killed and wounded soldiers having to pay for "lost" blood soaked equipment which was discarded by medics and unit members when they were treated in the field, about their loss of combat pay the moment these guys are placed on the stretcher, about the families having to scramble to find the money and flights to army hospitals, about food allowances given to service people which are then taxed as income - and every single member of congress has heard from constituents about the abuse the service members have been subjected to by the government.
Who in congress is being held responsible for failing in their duty to provide representation and congressional oversight for the people, which happens to be their job description? Why are these members of congress on these committees not "disciplined" or "suspended without pay" for their miserable and irresponsible performance in their duties?
In a just and fair world, these people would not only be "suspended" but made to serve a 100 hours of community service in the hospitals. Maybe if they had to empty bedpans, and help the paraplegics put on their prostheses and feed them their meals and fill out the endless paperwork, clean the filthy rooms, change the bloody dressings, empty the colostomy bags and administer the medications they would understand the meaning of "oversight" and "representation" and actually enact real and lasting changes.
March 6, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Cheney is on this. That takes a load off my mind! I heard today that Walter Reed's maintenance was "privatized" 2 years ago. Guess who was in charge?
You could have knocked me over with a feather!
Jan Knaus
March 6, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The narrative is thus: New Secretary Of Defense really takes charge! Heads roll! Tough and independent and won't listen to excuses! General Petraeus and the Surge, Gates and the Hospital cleanup, things have really turned around! All Rumsfelds fault!
rewind and play, continue loop.
March 6, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right.
That is because people confuse words with actions. Happens all the time and politicians know it. They only have to say the right thing not do the right thing. Just saying they are taking responsibility is sufficient for folks to think it is being handled.
It is somewhat like the realization you have as a parent, that children do not do as you expect they do what you inspect.
HRC, has this down to a science. Recall, she is being accountable for her vote, by not saying she made an error in judgement and just saying she does not support the war and that Bush is the one responsible.
As long as folks do not delve into how and what she actually did (vote yes) and not what she said (note how her speech is trotted out )...they are able to say that Hillary opposes the war even though she voted for it.
In Bush's administration, folks are promoted and honored for incompetence, like Rumsfield, Tenet, Brownie...and fired it they are competent..like all the US Atty generals testifying who did their jobs and were fired.
March 7, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink