I just read a lengthy investigative article in the Washington Post (yes, I know, a "liberal" newspaper) about appalling conditions in sections of Walter Reed Hospital (the crown jewel of our military hospital system) where Iraq War vets are being treated. If this is true - and I believe that most of it is true and not exaggerated - it is a major disgrace. I have written to four congressional members from Pennsylvania, three of them war vets and one an Iraq War vet, asking them to check it out.
Walter Reed

By Crystal915 on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 12:18 am:

It is my understanding that they are closing Walter Reed, because of the condition it's in. Then again, I heard that over a year ago, in Army Times, I believe, and still nothing. So sad, it's one of the most prestigous names in military hospitals, and to be in such horrible condition. I wonder if BAMC will be taking over as the hub for injured soldiers.

By Ginny~moderator on Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 06:28 am:

Well, apparently it's true, based on all the official statements, and according to this article in the Washington Post, then Commander at Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kiley, was told about it as early as 2003. Last October a woman took Joyce Rumsfeld to Walter Reed to meet with some wives - when hospital officials learned of it the woman who brought Mrs. Rumsfeld to Walter Reed was barred from the facility. Some low-level solders who manage outpatient care have now been dismissed, and, according to the Post:
"This week, in a move that some soldiers viewed as reprisal for speaking to the media, the wounded troops were told that early-morning room inspections would be held and that further contact with reporters is prohibited."

More Walter Reed

If this is "support the troops", heaven help us. Walter Reed is supposed to be closed in 2011 - but what about the wounded veterans who are there now and will be there for the next 4 years?

By Ginny~moderator on Friday, March 2, 2007 - 07:42 am:

So the Army has fired Maj. Gen. Weightman, who has been in charge of Walter Reed for half a year. Who did they replace him with? Lt. Gen. Kiley, who was in charge of Walter Reed for several years, to whom people started making complaints about conditions at least as early as 2003, and who lives across the street from Building 18, the one with the rooms with moldy walls, rats, and roaches. And from his home he could see the disabled vets crossing the road to the early morning assemblies in all weather.

What on earth are they thinking?

By Crystal915 on Friday, March 2, 2007 - 01:02 pm:

Welcome to the logic of the Army. This is the same Army who told me they would not do anything to remove black mold growing in my walls, even though my infant son had an asthmatic episode because of it, because living there was an option, not a requirement. Literally, deal with it or move. The same Army that allows all kinds of crimes to go unpunished, rather than lose numbers in headcount. Brilliant!

By Crystal915 on Friday, March 2, 2007 - 01:04 pm:

Bush orders review of vet hospitals

By Ginny~moderator on Friday, March 2, 2007 - 07:05 pm:

And more, from the Washington Post (whose investigative reports started the whole thing):

"A visibly angry Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced the resignation [of Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey] in a brief statement this afternoon, saying he was "disappointed" by the Army's response to disclosures of inadequate outpatient care at Walter Reed and bureaucratic inertia in dealing with wounded soldiers."
...
"'I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation pertaining to outpatient care at Walter Reed," Gates said. "Some have shown too much defensiveness and have not shown enough focus on digging into and addressing the problems.'"
...
However, Defense Secretary Gates does seem to "get it":
"Expressing confidence in the staff at Walter Reed, Gates said, 'From what I have learned, the problems at Walter Reed appear to be problems of leadership. The Walter Reed doctors, nurses and other staff are among the best and most caring in the world.'"
...
"According to the Democratic leadership of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Weightman is being subpoenaed to appear at Monday's hearing because the Army refused to allow him to go ahead with scheduled testimony after his removal as commander of Walter Reed.
In a statement, Waxman, the committee chairman, and Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), chairman of the subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs, said, 'The Army was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the decision to prevent General Weightman from testifying.'"


One of the reasons I cherish the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Without that freedom (and investigative reporters from "liberal" papers like the Washington Post), would anyone be paying serious attention to Walter Reed Hospital and the many problems faced by wounded vets?

Here's a link to the Washington Post article today: WashingtonPost WalterReed

By Colette on Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 03:40 pm:

The conditions at Walter Reed were disgusting. That being said, I have recently become familiar with a couple of VA hospitals because I've been taking my fil to various appointments. I have to say, I was very impressed with the kindness shown to him at each and every hospital or branch office we've been too. I don't know if it just happens to be the ones we went to, but I have never seen office staff, nurses, physicians as kind to both him the patient, and me the dil, as the ones at the VA.

By Ginny~moderator on Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 04:17 pm:

I have generally read good things about the VA system, that it has been tremendously revamped in the last 10 years and vets who have had lots of experience with the system say it is much improved - to the point that some vets over 65 wanted to opt out of their private Medigap insurance and instead go over to the VA (which, by new regulations, they are not being allowed to do).

Some columnists are speculating that one of the problems at the Walter Reed outpatient program (and I emphasize - the outpatient program - the inpatient program seems to have been running just fine) was that a lot of the work there was outsourced (privatized) and as a result the numbers of people doing maintenance, patient care, etc., was greatly reduced. I can understand a desire/need to bring in private sources of personnel, so that military personnel could be freed up to go to the battle areas, but it should be carefully monitored to see that care doesn't suffer. One columnist noted that the company that got the contract has a couple of people high up in this company who were high up in Haliburton when Cheney was involved with Haliburton. I don't know if that's true, or whether it made a difference, but I will say it wouldn't surprise me.

What concerns me is what is happening to disabled vets in terms of evaluating the level of their disability and how much of it relates to injuries they received while in the military. This often seems to be running much like the SS disability system, in that the claimant has to go through multiple hearings on higher levels in order to be treated fairly, getting low ratings (and low disabiity pension) at the first level and having to fight hard. One of the men in the Washington Post articles about Walter Reed had to involve his congressman's office - that shouldn't be necessary.

By Ginny~moderator on Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 11:15 pm:

Sadly, here's a followup article from the writers of the "expose" in the Washington Post, reporting complaints from vets around the country about outpatient care: WashingtonPost. The reporters point out that these complaints are, so far, undocumented - in that they haven't gone to meet with the vets they've heard from or see conditions themselves. Still ....

By Ginny~moderator on Monday, March 5, 2007 - 10:10 am:

ArmyTimes coverage: WalterReed