Quote :

"Army Secretary Is Ousted in Furor Over Hospital Care By DAVID S. CLOUD Published: March 3, 2007 WASHINGTON, March 2 — Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey was forced to resign Friday over the handling of revelations that wounded soldiers were receiving shabby and slow treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center."

It is NOT business as usual in the Department of Defense--nor should it be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/washington/03veterans.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

3/3/2007 7:50:15 PM

I'm interested to know how much of this is due to their personal mismanagement, and how much of it is due to the desire to find scapegoats. Maybe I'm giving the benefit of the doubt too much to the senior leadership of the Army, but I have a hard time believing that they are so completely callous that they allow this to happen on account of the fact that they simply don't care. My leaning is more towards the fact that of the Armed Forces, the Army is the most cash strapped followed closely by the USMC and money is focusing on making troops operational. I could be completely wrong.

3/3/2007 8:06:39 PM

haha, the Army has never struck me as more cash strapped than the USMC

3/3/2007 9:51:49 PM

I'm glad he got fired. He's was another one of Bush's corrupt war profiteering appointees.

3/3/2007 10:03:29 PM

americans oppressing americans

75% of the world must be happy

3/3/2007 11:00:52 PM

Quote :

"I'm interested to know how much of this is due to their personal mismanagement, and how much of it is due to the desire to find scapegoats."

If all they did was drop a few level one or level two managers, I would say its simple scapegoating, but given the fact that they've dropped senior appointed officials like the Army Secretary (a direct report to the Secretary of Defense) and the hospital head Maj. General Weightman, I'd say that they're taking this issue seriously.

I seriously doubt its from a lack of funds either. Asking for more money to take care of the wounded during the middle of a war is a next-to-impossible item for the Congress or the White House to turn down. Given the type of problems they were having and the way that the military was handling the issue, I'd say that it was just screwed up and that no one in the mighty military bureaucracy wanted to responsibility for fixing it.

3/3/2007 11:12:49 PM

WOW.



I was wondering how the hell they were going to just pin this on the director of Walter Reed. Because the Secretary basically had him fired.

But Maj Gen Weightman was only director of Walter Reed for 6 Months. He was a distinguished career combat surgeon who had just been recently appointed to the post. The problems at Walter Reed outpatient and housing was systemic and long ranging.

When he was dismissed from teh post, I was saying how the fuck could Weightman have been responsible for the deplorable conditions that were obviously due to years of neglect and mismanagement?

I was thinking that Secretary Harvey -- or someone in his circle -- didnt like Weightman for political/personal reason and made his unlucky ass the scapegoat for problems that were foundational to the institution.

this is serious business. i hope they seriously investigate why Weightman was dismissed. and at least clear his name of any wrongdoing if he was unfairly scapegoated.

Wow.






[Edited on March 4, 2007 at 3:04 AM. Reason : ]

3/4/2007 2:47:00 AM

^ Correction: According to the Seattle Times, Weightman headed Walter Reed for six months. In any event, just how many months does it take to clean, make needed repairs, paint, hire more/better people, and so on?

Quote :

"Veterans groups welcomed Weightman's dismissal. But they also noted that the officer chosen to replace Weightman on an interim basis — Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, the head of all Army medical programs — was Weightman's predecessor at Walter Reed. The groups said he might be responsible for some of the problems at the complex."

Unfortunately, Army Secretary Francis Harvey replaced Weightman with Kiley. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Kiley and Harvey. Good move--the word is out that Gates is not fucking around with the care of our veterans.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003596680_reed02.html

3/4/2007 3:11:17 AM

Quote :

"Mr. Harvey, the senior civilian official overseeing the Army, joined the Pentagon in 2004 after a long career as an engineer working mainly for defense contractors. He was an executive with the Westinghouse Corporation from 1969 to 1997. In a speech last year, he said improved efficiency could reduce both the federal work force and the number of contractors. "

WTF?

and you people still refuse to see how corrupt the Bush administration is?

he puts unqualified energy/contracting buddies in key positions like US Military command.

And horse judges in charge of Emergency Management.



"Ah yer doin a heckuva job, Harvey! Heckuva job."

3/4/2007 3:12:29 AM

^^ yeah, i realized my error and changed it to 6 months before you posted.

Walter Reed is a massive and powerful institution. I dont want to get wrapped up trying to defend Weightman since I really have no info other than whats in the papers.

but yeah, Kiley was the wrong choice. he was the guy in charge of Reed for over 2 years prior to Weightman.

I like Gates.

I think hes a good choice.

But I fear it may be "too little too late" for the disaster we have in Iraq. I dont know thats even fixable.

but thats another thread.

3/4/2007 3:17:25 AM

Quote :

"Weightman had acknowledged the problems in interviews after the disclosures, saying the center's outpatient system was overwhelmed by the unexpectedly high number of wounded soldiers returning from war zones. But he also had said that most of the problems predated his tenure and that he had spent most of his time overseeing the increase in case workers and military officers who handle outpatient services."

but you know when its all said and done, this is what it comes down to:

Quote :

"Senior Army officials said they had "lost trust and confidence" in Maj. Gen. George Weightman"

i dont think he's ultimately to blame, but yeah he should have done more.

Im really glad Kiley was yanked.



[Edited on March 4, 2007 at 3:48 AM. Reason : ]

3/4/2007 3:47:15 AM

^ I mean, I hear what you're saying about the qualifications of political appointees (FEMA's "Brownie" being perhaps the most egregious example to date), but what would truly qualify a nominee for some of these high-level and cabinet positions? I'm not sure that there is a magic formula of qualifications for many of these positions. After all, you get no guarantees with anyone.

Concerning the corruption allegation, I just don't believe it. Hell, I'm not a Republican; if I thought that Bush was actually corrupt, I would denounce him in a second. What is the motivation for this alleged corruption? Bush certainly doesn't need money. Political paybacks? What administration has not paid back its political allies in one way or another? I think that Bush is simply guilty of too much delegation and an over reliance on the "manager."

I think Bush listens to the advice of others and then delegates a given mission to somebody. I think the problem begins with lack of follow-up. There's micromanagement and then there's making sure each job gets done right--Bush should have done more follow-up during his time in office.

I think Bush relies too much on the corporate model. Rather than a bureaucratic manager, what is needed in many of these positions is leaders--and there is a big difference in the two. Bush's education, experience, and social circles probably explain much of this--not to mention his kitchen cabinet. I love business, but not every appointee can perform like a Jack Welch--key positions must have key leaders.

[Edited on March 4, 2007 at 4:31 AM. Reason : .]

3/4/2007 4:27:28 AM

Quote :

"I think Bush listens to the advice of others"

really?

3/4/2007 9:42:29 PM

I'm watching C-SPAN's coverage of the hearings about the horrible health care in the military system. Generals Kiley and Weightman are on the grill! Some of the incidents being described are really unforgivable--like one story of an injured soldier at Walter Reed whose wallet was left in his pants and his pants were left in Iraq.

[Edited on March 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2007 1:48:08 PM

^^Well we all know he's not smart enough to fool the entire country countless times, he certainly had some help from people with IQs of at least 10...cause if not...I mean what does that say about the intelligence level of people like you?

3/5/2007 1:57:45 PM

Quote :

" It is NOT business as usual in the Department of Defense--nor should it be."

Robert Gates didn't quit his Dean job to be a patsy. Plus it doesn't take a genius to see that fucking around in the wake of scandals is politically disastrous. Like, gee, it only totally wrecked the Republican party last year.

Quote :

"but I have a hard time believing that they are so completely callous that they allow this to happen on account of the fact that they simply don't care"

Doesn't matter if they care or not. The buck stops at the top. That is an unequivocal fact of executive leadership. If shit goes way wrong somewhere in the middle, then it's still your fault. Tough beans.

This is the right approach to the problem. Firing the man at the top lets everyone know their asses are on the line. Nobody can escape accountability.

Quote :

". My leaning is more towards the fact that of the Armed Forces, the Army is the most cash strapped followed closely by the USMC and money is focusing on making troops operational."

Again, the buck stops at the top. If the hospitals are in shitty condition because there isn't enough money, it's the Secretary's job to scream at the top of his lungs until he's out of breath and his larynx explodes.

Quote :

"As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Kiley and Harvey."

That's awesome. Why didn't we hire this guy about three years ago?

3/6/2007 3:58:37 AM

Scapegoat.

3/6/2007 9:01:52 AM

and you people want socialized medicicine


well here ya go, this is the crap that happens

3/6/2007 10:33:20 AM

criminal behavior is going to occur no matter who is in charge.

3/6/2007 4:17:04 PM

Quote :

"But Maj Gen Weightman was only director of Walter Reed for 6 Months. He was a distinguished career combat surgeon who had just been recently appointed to the post. The problems at Walter Reed outpatient and housing was systemic and long ranging. When he was dismissed from teh post, I was saying how the fuck could Weightman have been responsible for the deplorable conditions that were obviously due to years of neglect and mismanagement?"

This is what I was referring to in the beginning. I don't have the numbers to get into whether the Army or the Marines are the most chronically underfunded branches, but suffice to say they're both hurting. Fort Bragg is operating on less than 1/4 of its pre-wartime budget right now and pretty much all resources are being directed to Soldiers downrange. MG Weightman was a scapegoat, Harvey might have been.

I think I can safely assume that both were leaned on heavily by those above them to minimize costs. At one point Sec Rumsfeld suggested scrapping the DoD school system, which was probably one of the most ill-advised ideas ever, so I can see how that would trickle down.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 10:12:17 AM

Secretary Rumsfeld himself was one of the most ill-advised ideas ever.

3/7/2007 10:26:58 AM

agreed......im actually pretty impressed with Gates so far.

3/7/2007 10:27:32 AM

^^^ Simply not true. EVERY time the head people are asked in hearings if they have enough money, they say yes. The problem is with the distribution of the money.

3/7/2007 11:49:41 AM