ProgressOhio

Reposted on ProgressOhio courtesy of Veterans for Common Sense (VCS)

       On Saturday, June 28, 2008, without fanfare, scheduled media attention, or photo-ops, Senator Barack Obama stopped by Walter Reed Army Medical Center to visit wounded war veterans, a group that he has said endured and continues to endure substandard care under the Bush administration.

     Obama was in DC to speak to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, spent about two hours inside Walter Reed. On his way in and out, he did not speak to the small group of reporters who follow him, and the visit wasn't on his public schedule.

ROBERT L. HANAFIN, Major, U.S. Air Force-Retired

(THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY POLITICAL CANDIDATE BY EITHER MYSELF OR VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE (VCS) WHICH I AM A MEMBER OF - MAJOR HANAFIN) 

Senator Obama has criticized the Bush administration for its treatment of [troops] returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and has suggested Republican rival John McCain would continue Bush [failed foreign] policies if elected.

      The administration was roundly criticized last year after it was revealed [by progressive Veterans groups] that [active duty troops]  at Walter Reed were housed in rundown accommodations and suffered neglectful care.

      Obama said the country has failed its [troops and] veterans by allowing such "second-rate conditions," by not giving troops enough time at home [commonly known as dwell time] and not doing enough to support military families.

      One very important aspect of this everyone needs to understand is that the active duty troops on medical hold at Walter Reed, technically are not Veterans, and they DO NOT come under the umbrella of care that would be provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Until these troops receive their discharges (DD-214) they remain the property of the U.S. military. What was so shameful about this expose was that these youngsters were being mistreated by the very Defense Budget members in Congress of both parties approved. More to the point, they were being mistreated at the hands of taxpayer dollars. In all fairness to the Armed Forces, the number of troops being exposed to third class citizen health care was a very small percentage compared to the overall adequate treatment most wounded warriors receive. However, there is no excuse for even one volunteer to be treated like dirt. [Major Hanafin’s commentary]

Several members of Congress have unsuccessfully sponsored bills that would provide our troops much needed relief and more time at home between deployments, however these have only been Band-Aids, opposed by the Republican minority and a few Democratic allies. It was the cooperation between a few media outlets willing to buck the mainstream media silence, and more forward looking Veterans organizations that brought this shame into the public eye. Those traditional Veterans groups that lean predominantly Republican either downplayed the significance of the problem or took action (made speeches and press releases) after the fact. To them (the American Legion and VFW comes to mind) anything negative like how troops were being mistreated at Walter Reed would be contrary and harmful to a foreign policy position that remains on their legislative agendas – blind obedience and support for G.W. Bush. Not one of these old fashion organizations have tried to do the smart thing and distance themselves from both a failed foreign policy and politician they idolize. [Major Hanafin’s comment]

      Senator Obama made this statement after his visit, "we have to treat our [active duty troops and] Veterans better. We're betraying what I think is a solemn pact that we make with our veterans." In a speech at a rally with his former Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama said voters have a choice about whether to continue spending billions of dollars every month in Iraq, [selling their pick-up and SUVs as U.S. gas prices compete with Eurpean and Japanese folks pay] and leave troops there for 20 years, 50 years or 100 years — a line that elicited boos [of anti-war sentiment] from the crowd.

     On balance, Senator John McCain is seen by his supporters as having the advantage of military experience — the Arizona senator was a Navy pilot, and spent nearly six years as a Vietnam prisoner of war after he was shot down. Many of his supporters believe McCain would do a better job on both veterans issues and genuine concern for his troops as Commander-In-Chief than his predecessor.

      However, McCain has the disadvantage of a core of Veterans who would no more support him than John Kerry. Those veterans who happen to have been Veterans Against John Kerry or Swift Boat Vet members idolize McCain no more than they did John Kerry. Those who embrace the narrow focus of the POW/MIA movement (The Motorskooter club Rolling Thunder that endorse G.W. Bush in both 2004 and continue to endorse him, I assess they will now be split between supporting McCain or anti-war Republican Ron Paul of Texas. Swiftboaters tend to see McCain, who served with Kerry on the Senate POW/MIA Committee held in the 20th century as co-conspirators who downplayed POW/MIA issue(s). These veterans are strong supporters of Libertarian running as a Republican for President, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

      Obama, who serves on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, often notes that his grandfather served in World War II. [So, how many Democrats and Republicans do you know who claim veterans status via membership in the Sons of the American Legion, and never wore a uniform, Vice-President Dick Cheney, who is an honorary member of the American Legion claims such. This one line about Obama was unnecessary, because having veterans status or even war hero status proved Senator John Kerry’s downfall at the hands of Swiftboat Veterans for Bush. I’d strongly advise against trying to embrace veterans status unless one volunteers for the National Guard or Regular Armed Forces to legitimately claim such honor. BTW- Senator Obama is still young enough to volunteer at least for the Illinois National Guard. Major Hanafin’s comment. ]

      On one point Obama earned credit, his successful and effective criticism of McCain for opposing an expansion of the GI bill to guarantee full college scholarships for those who serve in the military for three years had the backing of most progressive Veterans groups with younger members, including the moderate Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), and activist Iraq Veterans Against the War [IVAW] and their political action committees.

      McCain and Pentagon officials [always looking for ways to cut cost except with big ticket and costly weapon systems, McCain’s mainstay with the Defense Industry] say they oppose the bill because they fear it would encourage people to leave after only one enlistment during a war.

      This does not hold up to scrutiny, because (1) volunteers by definition, unlike Vietnam, joined the Armed Forces to check out a career option, they were NOT drafted against their will, POINT: many intend staying in the Armed Forces regardless who their temporary Commander-In-Chief or Chain of Command is.  (2) Both Senator McCain and the civilians who really run the Pentagon (Republicans on this shift) fail to mention that the Department of Defense (DOD) offers extended and continuous education benefits to active duty troops in return for additional years of service. I know this for a fact, because I got my graduate degree via education assistance based on owing two years of service for every year of education assistance for a graduate degree. However, when the Pentagon goes through a drawdown or in Auto Industry terms closes a plant, this tax payer funded education money is forgiven as military members are encouraged to leave the military. [Major Hanafin’s comment]

Source: Veterans for Common Sense

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/ArticleID/10530