PDA

View Full Version : Bush VA Hack QUITS over Abusive Treatment of Iraq Occupation Vets



LoungeMachine
07-18-2007, 07:58 PM
VA Head Quits Amid Scrutiny on Vets Care

Tuesday July 17, 2007 10:01 PM


By HOPE YEN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - VA Secretary Jim Nicholson abruptly resigned Tuesday after months of the Bush administration struggling to defend charges of shoddy health care for veterans injured in the Iraq war.

Nicholson, a former Republican National Committee chairman and a Vietnam veteran, was picked by President Bush to head the Veterans Affairs Department in 2005. Planning to return to the private sector, he said his resignation is to take effect no later than Oct. 1.

Nicholson, 69, is the latest in a line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 years of the Bush administration.

``It has been an honor and privilege to lead the VA during this historic time for our men and women who have worn the uniform,'' Nicholson said in a statement. ``We have accomplished so much and the VA is always striving to improve our services to veterans.''

His resignation comes amid intense political and public scrutiny of the Pentagon and VA following reports of shoddy outpatient care of injured troops and veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and elsewhere.

It also ends a beleaguered two-year tenure in which Nicholson repeatedly fought off calls for his resignation over the VA's unexpected $1.3 billion shortfall in 2005 that put health care at risk; last summer's theft of 26.5 million veterans' personal data in what was the government's largest security breach; and, more recently, the award of $3.8 million in bonuses to senior officials who were responsible for the agency's budget problems.

Walter Reed is a Pentagon-run facility, but charges of poor treatment relating to poor coordination quickly extended to the VA's vast network of 1,400 hospitals and clinics. The VA also has a severe backlog of disability payments to injured veterans, with overwhelming delays of 177 days that Nicholson has called unacceptable.

``Secretary Nicholson's resignation should be welcome news for all veterans,'' said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. ``The VA under Secretary Nicholson has been woefully unprepared for the influx of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, consistently underestimating the number of new veterans who would seek care, and failing to spend the money Congress allotted to treat mental health issues.''

His departure comes at a critical time. Nicholson most recently headed a presidential task force charged with making immediate improvements to health care in which he pledged to take ``personal responsibility.''

Both Congress and a presidential commission chaired by former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala are planning to push sweeping changes in how care is administered.

A spokesman for the VA, Matt Smith, said Nicholson would work to facilitate a transition until a replacement is found. In the meantime, a strategic joint group of the Pentagon and VA is being headed by VA Deputy Secretary Gordon Mansfield to oversee coordination and other changes.

Political blogs have speculated for months that Nicholson might resign to run for senator or governor in Colorado, but a VA spokesman said Tuesday that Nicholson had ruled out any such bids.

Democratic lawmakers quickly called for a replacement who would vigorously look after veterans.

``The next secretary needs to be an advocate for veterans, not an apologist for the administration,'' said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a frequent critic of Nicholson who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

``The fact is, veterans have been right to be disappointed in Jim Nicholson's leadership at VA,'' said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, another member of the Veterans Affairs Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate. ``It is clear that Secretary Nicholson is leaving the VA worse off than he found it.''

Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., who chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said Nicholson's tenure has been plagued with unaccountability. He cautioned that Democratic lawmakers won't stand for it if Bush tried again to ``appoint someone who's a good ol' boy.''

``We need someone who can come in and say, 'Here's the plan,''' for addressing veterans' issues, Filner said.

Throughout criticism of the VA, Nicholson has repeatedly defended the VA while acknowledging there was room for improvement.

He pledged to add mental health services at more than 100 VA medical centers. The VA is adding new VA-run Vet Centers, hiring more suicide prevention coordinators and hosting state mental health conferences to facilitate collaboration of veterans services.

``When you're seeing over 1 million patients a week, you have to be very good, and if there is any one patient who doesn't get the care that they deserve, that's unacceptable,'' Nicholson said in March.

Still, he added more recently, ``the proof in the pudding is in the taste.'' Talk to veterans, he said after touring an outpatient clinic in Salisbury, N.C., and ``they will invariably tell you they are really getting good care from the VA.''

Nicholson was national Republican chairman from 1997 through the 2000 elections and a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.

Within months of taking office at the VA, he had to deal with a $1 billion shortfall at the agency, requiring the Bush administration to appeal to Congress for emergency spending.

Republicans blamed the shortfall on unexpected health care demands from veterans. But Democrats said it was an example of what they said was the administration's inadequate planning for the war in Iraq.

On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers praised Nicholson, saying he faced an uphill battle by taking the helm amid a burgeoning Iraq war. In private phone calls, Nicholson told them he was ready to move on after realizing he would be turning 70 early next year.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said he remembered when Nicholson called him in late 2004 to let him know that Bush was nominating him for the VA post. Craig said he warned Nicholson that he would face some tremendous challenges.

``Secretary Nicholson was willing to rise up and take on those challenges, and has worked tirelessly to fulfill VA's mission,'' he said.




Too bad, he was doing a "heckuva job"

:rolleyes:


WHY CAN'T THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TAKE CARE OF THE TROOPS?

DEMON CUNT
07-18-2007, 08:09 PM
Roth Army neocons rarely touch these threads. They spend their time on the important things like what Rosie had to say, calling Cindy Sheehan names, mentioning Clinton at every turn, insulting Gore, and so on. Fuckers.

Nickdfresh
07-18-2007, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Roth Army neocons rarely touch these threads. They spend their time on the important things like what Rosie had to say, calling Cindy Sheehan names, mentioning Clinton at every turn, insulting Gore, and so on. Fuckers.

You know. The stuff that really matters...

But I bet a lot of those dicks have big fucking yellow ribbons on their 1978 Dodge Rams...

ULTRAMAN VH
07-18-2007, 08:59 PM
Everybody duck!!! LoungeQueen is back in the house, and he brought his pet rock, Demon Cunt Stain with him. Where have you been Mr. Libby?

Nickdfresh
07-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Everybody duck!!! LoungeQueen is back in the house, and he brought his pet rock, Demon Cunt Stain with him. Where have you been Mr. Libby?

Yeah, um, any post on topic? Or is there no brain-dead op-ed for this one?

LoungeMachine
07-18-2007, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Everybody duck!!! LoungeQueen is back in the house, and he brought his pet rock, Demon Cunt Stain with him. Where have you been Mr. Libby?


:rolleyes:

Alas, this will probably be one of the most thought provoking posts from the Right on this subject....


One would think The Bush Administration, having started a war of choice, and bragging about supporting the troops, would have put someone competent in this position, thus actually caring for the Troops' well being.

But no.

They appoint a former REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CHAIRMAN FROM 2000

:rolleyes:


From the Administration that brought you Bernie kerik, Harriet Meirs, and Michael Brown.....

Jesus

:gulp:

DEMON CUNT
07-18-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Everybody duck!!! LoungeQueen is back in the house, and he brought his pet rock, Demon Cunt Stain with him. Where have you been Mr. Libby?

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5691/ultrawu6.jpg

ULTRAMAN VH
07-19-2007, 06:26 AM
Actually LoungeManure, I 100 percent agree that it is a tragedy that our Govt. is not taking care of our injured troops. These Americans have made the adult decision to serve our country and put themselves in harmsway for our freedom. To be discarded and thrown aside is an OUTRAGE, a complete OUTRAGE!!!!!!!

BigBadBrian
07-19-2007, 08:06 AM
Like these candy-assed liberals actually care about our vets. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break.

:gulp:

FORD
07-19-2007, 08:40 AM
Most vets ARE Liberals. Especially the ones who currently hold an elected office.

Angel
07-19-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Like these candy-assed liberals actually care about our vets. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break.

:gulp:

Which leg?

WACF
07-19-2007, 02:35 PM
I doubt Dem or Rep would of made a difference.

The reason I say that is because the the problem here is cost...nothing more hearltless than money and the lack of will to spend it where it should be.

The reason I figure it is not tied to left or right is because our government is usually left...and what they did to our forces and mostly our veterans is a disgrace.

Most Canadians do not know that during our "Peacekeeping" missions our snipers did one hell of a job killing whoever they needed too.
They also do not know that our troops fought short skirmishes and had numerous firefights...and we had troops injured in battle.
We even has some a death in Bosnia that were covered up as an accident.

Why....because our Liberal government had for decades robbed the forces of money and built a HUGE myth that we are peacekeepers.
The biggest part of the myth being that peacekeepers do not need good equipment or support...see our lack of air support and direct fire support capability(The later being fixed quite nicely thanks to the Leopard 2A6M entering our inventory).
Our Veterans that needed aid were generally not well taken care of...because we do not shoot people and people do not shoot at us.

The fact is our Liberals did not think Canadians could stomach the truth...so they lied.
*Angel...remember Art Engleton telling commons that Canadians have not fought trench warefare and running battles since Korea?
And this was only a few weeks after he was briefed on the battle of Medak Pocket!

I'm on a rant...fuck it!

Bottom line...left or right it does not matter...it all comes down to money!
And we all know the vets deserve better!

Redballjets88
07-19-2007, 02:42 PM
I'm glad that fuck is gone, if anyone deserves the best health care on earth it is our troops.

Nickdfresh
07-19-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Like these candy-assed liberals actually care about our vets. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break.

:gulp:

Wow. What a stunning retort...

When does your son enlist again to spell the guys and gals on their fourth tours of duty in Iraq, oh bleeding heart for the troops?

Be sure to put high-test in that SUV, too buddy.

Baby's On Fire
07-19-2007, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by WACF
I doubt Dem or Rep would of made a difference.

The reason I say that is because the the problem here is cost...nothing more hearltless than money and the lack of will to spend it where it should be.

The reason I figure it is not tied to left or right is because our government is usually left...and what they did to our forces and mostly our veterans is a disgrace.

Most Canadians do not know that during our "Peacekeeping" missions our snipers did one hell of a job killing whoever they needed too.
They also do not know that our troops fought short skirmishes and had numerous firefights...and we had troops injured in battle.
We even has some a death in Bosnia that were covered up as an accident.

Why....because our Liberal government had for decades robbed the forces of money and built a HUGE myth that we are peacekeepers.
The biggest part of the myth being that peacekeepers do not need good equipment or support...see our lack of air support and direct fire support capability(The later being fixed quite nicely thanks to the Leopard 2A6M entering our inventory).
Our Veterans that needed aid were generally not well taken care of...because we do not shoot people and people do not shoot at us.

The fact is our Liberals did not think Canadians could stomach the truth...so they lied.
*Angel...remember Art Engleton telling commons that Canadians have not fought trench warefare and running battles since Korea?
And this was only a few weeks after he was briefed on the battle of Medak Pocket!

I'm on a rant...fuck it!

Bottom line...left or right it does not matter...it all comes down to money!
And we all know the vets deserve better!


Lots of Canadian soliders have been killed in Afghanistan too. But the World never hears it, because only Americna soldiers' lives matter.

Proportionately, it's quite possible more Canadian troops died in Afghanistan than American soldiers.

But nobody knows that, because our government is also run by a bunch of fucking assholes. And they put on these bullshit shows of mourning....if our government really cared, they would let the World know Canadians are also dying over there too. All in the name of the bullshit War on Terror.

Angel
07-19-2007, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by WACF
I doubt Dem or Rep would of made a difference.

The reason I say that is because the the problem here is cost...nothing more hearltless than money and the lack of will to spend it where it should be.

The reason I figure it is not tied to left or right is because our government is usually left...and what they did to our forces and mostly our veterans is a disgrace.

Most Canadians do not know that during our "Peacekeeping" missions our snipers did one hell of a job killing whoever they needed too.
They also do not know that our troops fought short skirmishes and had numerous firefights...and we had troops injured in battle.
We even has some a death in Bosnia that were covered up as an accident.

Why....because our Liberal government had for decades robbed the forces of money and built a HUGE myth that we are peacekeepers.
The biggest part of the myth being that peacekeepers do not need good equipment or support...see our lack of air support and direct fire support capability(The later being fixed quite nicely thanks to the Leopard 2A6M entering our inventory).
Our Veterans that needed aid were generally not well taken care of...because we do not shoot people and people do not shoot at us.

The fact is our Liberals did not think Canadians could stomach the truth...so they lied.
*Angel...remember Art Engleton telling commons that Canadians have not fought trench warefare and running battles since Korea?
And this was only a few weeks after he was briefed on the battle of Medak Pocket!

I'm on a rant...fuck it!

Bottom line...left or right it does not matter...it all comes down to money!
And we all know the vets deserve better!

I remember it well... Knew a guy that was in Bosnia... and folks in the Gaza strip prior to that. Most Canadians don't even clue in that peacekeeping is dangerous work, and yes... involves combat at times. Hell, the majority of Canadians don't even clue in that peacekeepers are in war zones!

For the record: I have ALWAYS been against the lack of funding for the military. If I remember correctly, PC Brian Mulroney (yeah, I voted for the idiot!) promised a lot, but didn't deliver.

Baby's On Fire
07-19-2007, 07:00 PM
Don't feel too bad. None of them ever fucking deliver.

They're all assholes and they should all be hung on the gallows alongside Bush and his criminal cronies.

Angel
07-19-2007, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Lots of Canadian soliders have been killed in Afghanistan too. But the World never hears it, because only Americna soldiers' lives matter.

Proportionately, it's quite possible more Canadian troops died in Afghanistan than American soldiers.

But nobody knows that, because our government is also run by a bunch of fucking assholes. And they put on these bullshit shows of mourning....if our government really cared, they would let the World know Canadians are also dying over there too. All in the name of the bullshit War on Terror.

I disagree with you on that one. Canadian military deaths make the news, each and every one. The US doesn't show coffins returning, etc. Harper TRIED to make it so that repatriation ceremonies weren't shown here, too. But the families of lost soldiers fought that one.

It's not our governments fault if non-Canadian media outlets don't pick up the stories.

WACF
07-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Angel

If I remember correctly, PC Brian Mulroney (yeah, I voted for the idiot!) promised a lot, but didn't deliver.

Yes...I think his report was called the white paper.

Pretty much called for a complete updating.

The thing that is comical about him is that he sold off our fleet our Chinooks that the Tories are now replacing.
The Dutch took our old ones...rebuilt them and are currently flying our troops around on them.


I think if Mulroney had stuck around longer and not bailed the forces may of had a chance....but he kinda cut his own throat(Airbus scandle too...and that turned out to be part BS).
The media hated he was so close to Reagan...just look at the comparson's they make now.

Kim Champbell tried but she had her own ghosts and Jean cancelled everything the Tories had put in place.
Most notable is the EH-101 contract...yeah Jean really saved us money there the cocksucker! He should of gone to jail for killing those SkyKing pilots!

Just look at that fat fuck Denis Codere, he has already gone on record saying that we will not honour the C-17 contract...even with our first one showing up right away if the Libs win the next election.
He also wants the forces to go with the MGS versus the Leaport 2A6M and 2A4 purchase...the asshole thinks a 105mm wheeled gun can take on a tank!
He also wants to look at the Airbus cargo plane that yet does not exist instead of the Hercules...there are many Liberals I just hate...and I try not to hate anyone.

Angel
07-19-2007, 11:04 PM
Thanks, WACF... I needed that reminder thrown in my face when my son is in the process of enlisting!

It's so fucking ridiculous what they did to such a great military!

WACF
07-19-2007, 11:27 PM
Didn't mean to worry you!

DEMON CUNT
07-19-2007, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Gimme a break.

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/50477206/Pear_Shape_Syringe___Vaginal_Douche.jpg

Angel
07-20-2007, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by WACF
Didn't mean to worry you!

Not too worry, WACF. The kid (man) is an adrenalin junkie. He HAS to have a dangerous job, or he gets bored really fast. I figure repelling out of helicopters to fight forest fires is just as dangerous as what he'll face in the military. I'm used to it.

What I do worry about is PTSD, etc. Our government isn't much better than the US when it comes to taking proper care of our vets!

LoungeMachine
07-20-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Like these candy-assed liberals actually care about our vets. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break.

:gulp:

Typical :rolleyes:


You can't comment or defend the last 6 years of VA "stewardship" under a Republican Controlled Congress and White House.....

But you can project your ignorance in the thread by insulting those who dare shine a light on your failings...

Too funny.

It must get harder and harder each day to call yourself a "conservative", eh Brie? :rolleyes:


Thanks for the insightful debate you bring to these threads, you never let us down :D

:gulp:

WACF
07-20-2007, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Lots of Canadian soliders have been killed in Afghanistan too. But the World never hears it, because only Americna soldiers' lives matter.

Proportionately, it's quite possible more Canadian troops died in Afghanistan than American soldiers.

But nobody knows that, because our government is also run by a bunch of fucking assholes. And they put on these bullshit shows of mourning....if our government really cared, they would let the World know Canadians are also dying over there too. All in the name of the bullshit War on Terror.

You must have a shitty newsource.

Our government has been working hard for over a year now trying to get other countries to release their troops for combat.
There are so many caveats in place that the NATO force is almost usless.
Last year we pissed off the Germans so bad they walked out of a NATO meeting.

This deal has been in the works for awhile now:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/237988

Coup for Canada if UAE joins Afghan mission

Jul 20, 2007 04:30 AM
Bruce Campion-Smith
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA–The United Arab Emirates may send troops to work alongside Canadians in southern Afghanistan, sources say.

The move, which could come this fall, would mark a military and diplomatic coup for Canada, which had been urging the tiny Arab nation to contribute soldiers and equipment to the mission to put a "Muslim face" on the international coalition.

It comes at a time when Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been pressing nations to contribute more to help stabilize Afghanistan.

Canadian diplomats and defence officials made overtures to the UAE in January to get involved in the mission. Now a tentative plan is being discussed for the deployment of a small – but highly symbolic – UAE force to serve under the leadership of Canadian officials.

Officials at the UAE embassy in Ottawa declined to comment. However, a source confirmed the federal government is aware that a possible deployment is in the works by the small Arab nation, located along the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.

According to a defence department briefing note released in the spring, UAE signalled it was interested in contributing a "small tactical unit." The contribution could include four LeClerc main battle tanks, two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles, two self-propelled 155-mm guns and a detachment of unmanned aerial vehicles, according to the note, released under access to information.

"The UAE is capable of bringing considerable financial support to development projects and would provide a Muslim face to International Security Assistance Force operations, providing a counterpoint to insurgent rhetoric," it said.

WACF
07-20-2007, 12:51 PM
We are not the only ones complaining.

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070718/n071833A.html

.....Britain has complained its troops, along with those from the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, are the only NATO forces fighting the Taliban in the most violent areas of southern Afghanistan. Other NATO-contributing countries restrict the use of their forces to relatively peaceful areas in the north.

Spain, Italy, Germany and France have refused to send additional troops to Afghanistan.

WACF
07-20-2007, 12:58 PM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44005000/gif/_44005814_afghan_map_troops_416.gif

So far this year there have been 83 combat fatalities, with 54 of them (65%) in Kandahar and Helmand.


http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/images/afghan2007.gif

The conclusion one could draw from this is that the Afghan fighting remains centred on two of the country's 34 provinces. A total of 15 provinces, containing 34% of the country's population, have had no NATO fatalities at all in the period evaluated here. (By contrast Kandahar and Helmand, the real war zone, contain between them about 8% of the national population.) Efforts by insurgent groups to broaden the conflict this year seem to be have had limited success, and their northern wing, which includes the unstable Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Taliban fighters based out of the Pakistan FATA area, may even be losing ground in the east of the country this year, in terms of their ability to strike at the NATO forces.

http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_07_17.html#006224