Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
In Washington, it's always the year of the rat
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Democrats have leapt on reports of mold, rats and bureaucratic hurdles at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as further proof of President George Bush's failed war policies.

To the contrary, the problems at Walter Reed are further proof of the Democrats' failed domestic policies -- to wit, the civil service rules that prevent government employees from ever being fired. (A policy that also may account for Robert Byrd's longevity as a U.S. senator.)

Thanks to the Democrats, government employees have the world's most complicated set of job protection rules outside of the old East Germany. Oddly enough, this has not led to a dynamic workforce in the nation's capital.

Noticeably, the problems at Walter Reed are not with the doctors or medical care. The problems are with basic maintenance at the facility.

Unless U.S. Army generals are supposed to be spraying fungicide on the walls and crawling under beds to set rattraps, the slovenly conditions at Walter Reed are not their fault. The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but -- because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats -- the maintenance crew can't be fired.

If the general "in charge" can't fire the people not doing their jobs, I don't know why he is being held responsible for them not doing their jobs.

You will find the exact same problems anyplace market forces have been artificially removed by the government and there is a total absence of incentives, competition, effective oversight, cost controls and so on. It's almost like a cause-and-effect thing.

The Washington Post could have done the same report on any government facility in the Washington, D.C., area.

In a typical story from the nation's capital, last year, a 38-year-old woman died at the hospital after her blood pressure dropped and a D.C. ambulance took 90 minutes to pick her up and take her to a hospital that was five minutes away. For 90 minutes, the 911 operator repeatedly assured the woman's sister that the ambulance was on its way.

You read these stories every few months in Washington.

New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum also died in Washington last year after being treated to the famed work ethic of the average government employee. Rosenbaum was mugged near his house and hit on the head with a pipe. A neighbor found him lying on the sidewalk and immediately called 911.

First, the ambulance got lost on the way to Rosenbaum. Then, instead of taking him to the closest emergency room, the ambulance took him to Howard University Hospital, nearly 30 minutes away, because one of the "emergency medical technicians" had personal business in the area.

Once he finally arrived at the hospital, Rosenbaum was left unattended on a gurney for 90 minutes because the "emergency medical technicians" had completely missed his head injury and listed him as "drunk" and "low priority."

Months later, the deputy mayor for public safety told The Washington Post that "to the best of his knowledge, no one involved in the incident had been fired."

No one has any authority over civil service employees in the nation's capital. Bush probably lives in terror of White House janitors. The White House bathroom could be flooding and he'd be told: "I'll get to you when I get to you. Listen, fella, you're fifth on my list. I'm not making any promises, just don't flush for the next week."

It's especially adorable how Democrats and the media are acting like these are the first rats ever sighted in the Washington, D.C., area. There are rats in the Capitol building. There are rats in The Washington Post building. Bush has seen rats. But let's leave Chuck Hagel out of this for now.

On "ABC News" last year, a CBS radio reporter described a rat jumping off the camera in the White House press briefing room in the middle of a press conference. (And a shrew sits right in the front!) The Washington Post called the White House press room -- located between the residence and the Oval Office -- "a broken-down, rat-infested fire trap." During David Gregory's stand-up report on MSNBC about the damage done to Republicans by conditions at Walter Reed, rats appeared to be scurrying on the ground behind him.

Instead of an investigative report on the problems at Walter Reed, how about an investigative report on what happens when the head of janitorial services at Walter Reed is told about the dirt, mold and rats at the facility? If it's before 2:30 in the afternoon and he's still at work and he hasn't taken a "sick day," a "vacation day," a "personal day" or a "mental health day," I predict the answer will be: "I'm on my break."

The Democrats' response is: We must pass even more stringent rules to ensure that all government employees get every single break so that public-sector unions will continue giving massive campaign donations to the Democrats.

This was, you will recall, the precise issue that led to a partisan battle over the Homeland Security bill a few years ago: Whether employees at an emergency terrorist response agency could be fired -- as Republicans wanted -- or if they would be subject to civil service rules and unfireable -- as the Democrats wanted.

HELLO? HOMELAND SECURITY? THERE'S A BOMB IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE!

Sorry, not my job. Try the Department of Public Works.

When Republican Saxby Chambliss challenged Democrat Max Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, he ran an ad attacking Cleland for demanding civil service protections for workers at the Homeland Security Department. Naturally, Republicans were accused of hating veterans for mentioning Cleland's vote on the Homeland Security bill.

Now that the Democrats are once again pretending to give a damn about the troops by wailing about conditions at Walter Reed, how about some Republican -- maybe Chambliss! -- introduce a bill to remove civil service protections from employees at Walter Reed and all veterans' hospitals? You know, a bill that would actually address the problem.

And don't worry about the useless, slothful government employees who can only hold jobs from which they cannot be fired. We'll get them jobs at the EPA and Department of Education.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
"Civil" Servants ?
Go ahead Kimberly, tell us how it is George Bush's fault.

Some of the older Federal workers will tell the new ones to be sure and have a deck of cards in your desk.

That way, if you lose power, you can still play solitare or free cell.

AHHHH! BUSH LIED! RATS DIDN'T DIE!
Government medical care at it's finest. All of you libs go join the military for your "nationalized health care", or "universal health care" whatever it is. And the next person that tells me that there's 46 million in this country that "don't have health care" is going to get their skull split. It just isn't so. Now, if they live 300 miles from the nearest hospital, they don't have health care. But there's not 46 million of them. Just about everyone has health care. They might have to put a second on their house to afford it, but they have health care.

Shameless plug
Since the links aren't working, visit my blog for a great essay on a non-political topic.

http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/


RAts and Rats
Yes, Ann is right as usual. Rats run the government and the rats sell us out. It all happens in the great Rat city of DC.

Shameless plug: I have a new article on my blog about Creation.

Great angle
Outstanding read again as usual; it's a great point and one that is/was completely overlooked and unreported; do people really think the generals and the doctors should be fixing up these old worn out govt. buildings? Federal workers/bureaucrats should bear some of the responsibility...after all, they are the ones that should actually be doing the work, right? Yes the soldiers deserve the best. But the person who walks past a hole in the wall where rats are coming in, and is wearing an identification badge that says "maintenence" must also show some proaction and do their job in order for it to be fixed. Do they not care for these wounded heroes? Take the market force out of the job, and this is what you get.

Peppermint
Post your link. Your name's not underlined so we can't hyperlink.


BrianR
I meant to say thanks too for the observation. I hope TH gets their bugs worked out. I've been going crazy today trying to get to blogs and such.

Buck2

I know a couple of vets who use the VA hospitals regularly for just about everything medically they need. I have heard some of what the current flap is about from them for some time now.

Sure, the VA has been underfunded, but a lot of the repair work needed is labor intensive not costing a lot of money. I KNOW the maintenance crews are earning enough. They are just not earning what they are being paid to do. We are not talking about remodeling here, we are talking about light clean-up; you know, plastering, cleaning, that sort of on-the-job work.

Civil service employees are overpaid and underworked and Bush gets blamed. Go figure!

She is a piece of work
Is there any group she doesn't intend to insult. Recently it was the gays with a "school yard taunt". Yea, right (substitute nigrah for fagot and see how far that argument goes).

Now its the civil service. The administration wanted to do right by the GIs, but those public employees just don't support the troops. Yea, right. Anyone want to offer a guess as to how many government employees are vets?

She is a piece of work. By the time she's done, the only people admitting to being conservative will racists, homophobes, and bible fundamentalists.

I am really glad she's yours.

Peppermint
Yeah, it's been going on for a couple of days, now.

They seem to be working through it. More and more stuff is returning to normal.

BHL
Ann really isn't "ours", she belongs to everyone ! That is a bonus for all !

Thank God it is her that "insults" us all, and not your duly elected Congress.

Oh wait, they do too; they consistently insult our intelligence by piling pork onto Bills that have nothing to do with $$$ going to the States and by doing as they want not as their constituents want.

So, lighten up on Ann, and put some pressure on YOUR Congress instead and maybe we can solve some problems in this country.

Bleeding Heart Liberal
But more importantly, YOU are not one of ours,
thank God.

Military Discipline
Coulter: "The military is nominally in charge of Walter Reed, but -- because of civil service rules put into place by Democrats -- the maintenance crew can't be fired."

I wonder what Walter Reed would be like if the military were actually in charge--from top to bottom.

I'm a Navy man, myself--but I'm imagining Walter Reed being run and maintained like an Air Force base.

Is this true at ALL military hospitals?
That the maintenance is NOT done by the mil? Past time for a change...

BHL: substitude ANY word with the "N" word and see what it gets you.

interesting,Pappy
It's coming Pappy...the monkey will come.
Ann's column is a great example of what the news will never report...this has gone on for years in more than one place. Bureaucracy is king. Having been part of the military health care system at one time,there is truth to what Ann says. The German Nationals couldn't lose their jobs, even if they came to work lit. There are always two sides. I reitterate that ignoring the troops/military in general, during peacetime was a huge mistake. But, naturally, the time to slam the President is now and blame fim for absolutely all the wrongs. If one truly looks at the bigger picture...unless that General were at the helm for 5 years or more, is it ALL his fault? Or anyone else's who resigns over poor management,etc...Only under the magnifying glass,hey?

Facilities Maintenance
was taken away from the military and given to civil servants well over 20 years ago. The military budget uses better than 60% on pay and allowances. The remainng 40% is spread out for training, maintenance of equipment, purchase of new equipment, purchase of administrative materials, fuels, operations, and facilities. In 1997, at an advanced logistics course, I was informed that based on funding plans that it would take the Marine Corps 300 years to to renovate all buildings on the posts and stations. That didn't take into account work ethic and ability of the civil servants.
So BHL, Kimberbot, and the other demoncrats who troll here can come and start claning on the base any time to show their support for the troops. That won't support the war either - so I expect them to be contacting me shortly.
......hello?......
......crickets.....

Another Demo/MSM big lie
My understanding from the news reports was that the biggest complaints from the veterans at Walter Reed was the bureaucracy and red tape that they had to go through for outpatient care. Stuff like lost paperwork and multiple completion of the same forms. The poor building maintenance is a red herring from the MSM because it provides a “visual” for the cameras. Peeling paint and stuff like that probably doesn’t even come up on the radar of someone coming back from living in the desert in a tent. However, the causes of the bureaucracy and incompetence are the same as what Ann gives. There is no worker in America more protected than a Federal worker.

In any case, all of the whining by the libtards on here about Bush budget cuts is the standard Democrap Big Lie. Whine long enough and loud enough, and get your buds in the MSM to repeat it for you. Eventually it will become legend and legend begets truth. (See Liberty Valence, Man Who Shot).

The VA Budget has increased steadily under Bush, and more than it increased under Klinton.


http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

2006 = 60 BILLION

2007 = 80 BILLION

2008 = 90 BILLION

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=5634

The funny thing about this...
Ann's not making any of this up, nor is she exagerating.

I've worked in federal agencies for most of the last 13 years. Yes, there are plenty of decent, hard working, get-the-job-done civil servants out there. And for each one of them there are 3 or 4 others whose work is being done by the good one. That's not exageration, that's experience. When you hear stories about unfireable employees in the Federal government, they are all true. And a great many of them take advantage of that impenetrable job security.

The surest way to get fired in the government is to commit some egregious EEO violation. Beyond that, not so much. I've heard of people caught stealing (red-handed, mind) FROM THE GOVERNMENT who aren't fired. It's easier to get fired from the military (not simply transfered to a job where you can't do any damage, I mean actually removed from the service) than from the civil service. There's even an acronym for people who have hit their ceiling, are waiting for retirement elegibility, and are sucking up money not doing anything: RIP (Retired, In Place). I've met them. They are actually PROUD of that status.

As to people who abuse the leave system, they are out there as well, and the most egregious abuses you hear about are par for the course. I worked with a civil servant once who came to work 3 days a week, literally. He once took two weeks off to move to a new house locally (I did mine over a weekend). He left of his own volition, but did not officially resign, and, thus, his position in the manning documents remained filled and couldn't be advertised.

While I've known many exceptions, incompetance, sloth, and abuse of the system are the rule in the civil service. And it's at least as bad as the conservatives say.

Is this a peek
into socialized medicine (Hillary Care)?

I think so.

jimbo
If we're lucky.

To Lynne
Don't forget, Shrillary wanted to replace the private contract security at Nuclear Power Plants with federal workers also. It makes we shudder to think what this country would be like if the Commie Democrpas got their way on everything.

In Defense of Federal Workers
While I normally appreciate Ann's column and support many of her views, I feel this column is off base. First of all, it is my understanding that maintenance was taken away from from Federal workers to be contracted out, and the number of Federal workers actually involved in maintenance was reduced from 300 to 60. If that is the case, in fairness Ann should have come down equally or even harder on the contract employees. I am surprised that Ann did not mention this fact in her column, probably because that would detract from her purpose of defaming Federal workers. Additionally, Ann is mixing apples and oranges. The examples she cites in Washington, DC, in all likelihood involved DC civil service workers, not Federal civil service employees. As to the firing of Federal employees, let me assure you that Federal employees are fired quite often. As a former personnel specialist & Personnel Officer in one of the largest Federal agencies, my staff and I fired hundreds of employees in my 25+ years of service. Are the procedures complex, most assuredly, but not insurmountable as Ann would have you believe. As to comparing the work ethic of the private sector with the Federal, when I first got out of the Army, I worked for a large package delivery company. It was common practice among drivers to complete their routes as early as possible, and then sit in a McDonald's for 2-3 hours before returning to the hub. If they didn't engage in this practice, they would deliver at a slower pace so that their number of stops per hour would not go over what they knew to be the average. This is not to say that similar conduct does not occur in the Federal sector, but quite honestly, I have never observed a more dedicated work ethic than what I have found generally among Federal employees. For the most part, they not only work to support themselves and their families, but also out of dedication to the particulaqr mission of their agency. So, Ann, enough cheap shots and hyperbole. Get back to substance and stick to the facts.

I guess with "truth in posting"
I should say that she would not replace private security with government workers because if they got their way totally there would not be any Nuclear power plants for them to guard. So we would lose the 18% generation that they provide that is CO2 free. We would also probably lose half of the generation from Hydro because they have been very vocal against that also (can't endanger those snail darters).

If they had their way totally the entire nation would be on rotating blackouts similar to Kalifornia, electricity would cost 20 cents/Kw-hr in the cheapest region, and the US would be in a massive depression that makes the 30s look like boom times. We would be in a situation similar to Mad Max with roving gangs killing people to get by. (of course the honest people would have no guns to fight back.)

Two more words
on Federal Employees:

Airport Screeners

nuf sed

Preplanned Hysteria
Gee, isn't it "funny" how the VA has been in desperate condition for decades, but suddenly there is a news story about the bad conditions at exactly the time that the Democrat(ick)s need a stick to hit the President with?

We waste our time arguing with them over the drummed up news that has been created for the purpose of the Democrat(ick)s showing their "support" for the troops in spite of their non-support for the mission.

Instead, we should be pointing out their motives and the obvious collusion between the Democrat(ick)s on Capitol Hill and their willing accomplices in the media.

Of course, we have to start with the understanding that the Left has no shame.

Should Walter Reid be cleaned up?

It should have been done years ago. But why should I believe that these posers even cares what happens to our injured soldiers? And why sould I believe that none of them knew about this problem.

BTW
Would someone tell the Web Master on Town hall that there is something wrong with the formatting on the "Columnists" web pages?

All the text & objects are appearing on my computer in a single column down the middle of the page and it is annoying.

This is not happening at any other website I go to, so it isn't me.

Vic
You said, "and the US would be in a massive depression that makes the 30s look like boom times"

Don't worry, it's coming. Unfortunately.

Gutless: the writing of Ann Coulter
"It's not our fault, it's all liberals fault" appears to be the new mantra of the right. As I've said before this Walter Reed scandal happened on GWB's watch, regardless of what may or may not have happened in the past. The Republicans are supposed to be the party that supports the troops, and that's what this is about, not sanitary conditions in the rest of Washington. Ann is trying to deflect bullets here but it isn't working. She should show some guts and accept that this is a disgrace. But she can't because all she can do is call people names. Pathetic.

calabash
i agree. i was in the Air Force for 4 yrs. My job was fire protection specialist. My real job was fire station maint. man. We spend the vast amount of our time cleaing and maintaining the station and fire trucks. To be honest looking back if we didnt have that to do we would have been sitting around all day as there were few if any fires. As a side note there were few fires because the houses on the base were inspected every yr. for fire hazards. If the personnel in the house didnt take care of the hazards in a timely manner they were booted off the base.

Critical Bill
If your point is that taking care of our soldiers should not be a partisan issue. I agree wholeheartedly. There is enough blame to go around. Instead of focusing on that, we need to put the focus where it belongs... taking care of our wounded soldiers.

Interesting
Ann's column has been up since 11 something last night, and the only Leftie posts we've got so far have been from BleedingHeartLiberal, who calls Ann mean but (true to form for Leftists) doesn't address a single point in the column, and Critical Bill, who trots out the faithful old saw of "It happened on GWB's watch, therefore it's his fault."

I guess not only did Ann score another home run, as per usual, this time she knocked it so far out of the park that none of the usual suspects can even manage to sputter, let alone bring any guns to bear!

Well done Ann!

Fergus
You've obviously not tried to post anything here for the last few days - there has been some sort of technical fault on Townhall and the website has been virtually dormant all week.
And I didn't say it was GWB's fault, as such, I said it happened on his watch so therefore he and his administration must accept responsiblity. I wouldn't have said anything different if it had happened on Bill Clinton's watch.

mrknightly
So in 25+ years you were aware of the firing of litterally "hundreds" of federal employees?

How many civil servants are on the payroll right now, by the way?

And, of course, leave it to a federal employee to jump in and play "blame-the-contractor" because that's what usually happens when something goes wrong in a federal agency. "It's not my fault that I erased 10,000 trademark applications by formatting the server for which I was responsible, the contractors didn't back it up." (True story. By the way, the person who wiped out 3 months of work still works at that agency 9 years later and didn't notify the contractors -- who were in the room at the time -- what he was doing. Also, we weren't supposed to touch the server.)

By the way, I've done both private sector (non-union) and federal. Private sector workers do a heck of a lot more (on average) than civil servants, and that especially includes government contractors, because it doesn't take more than a "you're fired" to get rid of us. If a contractor is under-performing, the COTR has the right and responsibility to get rid of the contractor, especially in October.

The solution to the problems and preceptions of civil servant laziness and incompetence is actually very simple. Get rid of the complexity, make employment at-will and advancement (in pay and position) merit-based. Give people an incentive to do well and a disincentive to do poorly. Does that mean that a large number of civil servants will be out of work? Probably, but they'd probably be cheaper on welfare than as GS-double-digits.

Liberty
We should have been taking care of our soldiers for decades.

I know
I know it’s great to blame everything on the Democrats, but in this case, it’s simply not true. It’s no one’s fault. In fact, this is actually proof that the Bush administration was telling the truth about their expectation and honestly did not believe there would be excessive casualties. Walter Reed has been scheduled to close since before the war. The Navy Hospital was receiving most cases and different units at Walter Reed were being broken up or moved to other facilities. No one pours maintenance funds into a facility that’s going to close so the buildings started to deteriorate. That would be wasteful. Unfortunately, as the war continued, mounting casualties required Walter Reed to accept more and more cases, bring us to where we are now.

Democrats have shamelessly used this to say that the administration does not really care about the troops. Now we have Ann using it as an example of how evil the Democrats are. Both are wrong. Both are pathetic and both should be ashamed, but that’s not the way things work. Now, as this is TH, let us resume the regular scheduled finger pointing and put downs.

Although TRANNY ANNIE looks SMASHING. .
H/she always gets the FACTS WRONG! Not only were ALL OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE for Walter Reed REPUBLICAN, but ONE OF THE FACTORS was OUTSOURCING the MAINTAINANCE and SUPPORT!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17489352/

The FACT is that Government employees can do things BETTER for LESS MONEY! Witness not only Walter Reed, but the salary paid to CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ (Halliburton has received $30-$40 PER MEAL, but has been cited for NUMEROUS HEALTH VIOLATIONS including SUBSTANDARD WATER!) Furthermore, while the average HMO has OVER 30% administrative costs, MEDICARE has administrative costs of about 3%!

Maybe they are asleep at the wheel?
The FDA might have the answer:

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/

buck2 - standard dem/lib lies
"it's the civil servants fault the current administration has pulled funding for the V.A. and even attempted their famous strategy of privatization. That sure did wonders at Walter Reed. "


Funding has not been "pulled" from the VA during the Bush administration. In fact, it has gone up. Perhaps it has not gone up as much as the VA wished for, but only in the whacky world of greedy socialist government is this defined as a cut. In the real world, your statement is defined as a lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Budget "cuts"
I love how the Dems go on about budget "cuts". Somehow increasing funding, but not as much as was requested is a "cut". Kind of like asking for a 10% pay raise, getting a 5% raise, and complaining someone "cut" your pay.

I am tire dof hearing about budget "cuts" that increase funding. It is a horrible abuse of English. An increase is NOT a cut, so please stop calling it one!

Buzzkat
We must have been writing the same thing at the same time. Sadly, yours came out more eloquent than mine.

Reagan Said...
The closest thing to eternal life we can see is a government program.

Same for the job security of federal employees. Never fired, just rearranged. Watched this for years.....

Federal Workers
Usually I agree with Ann and enjoy her columns. However, as a retired federal employee I find this column unfair. First of all government employees can and do get fired, sometimes unjustly. I have seen it happen.

At least at the location I worked at, janitorial work was out sourced. Money might have been saved but a lot of things did not get done or done as well.

Last I heard we never got the raises we were promised when times got better after the years when we received little or no pay increases.President Clinton said he couldn't afford to give us a raise. So much for the clinton prosperity.

Don Hoglund

An Easy Solution to the Rats
Give me a silenced Ruger .22, a crate of hollow-point ammunition, a position I cannot be fired from, and free run of the building, and I will be happy to take care of the rats for you.

You'll have to find someone else to deal with the mold

(hypo)Critical Bill
Sorry, but the President does not appropriate the money. That is the job of the Congress. And this the Walter Reed "scandal" occurred on Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's watch in reality.

Of course, I am being facetious here. The fact is the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed and throughout the VA system have been going on for decades. Yes! Decades! And, as has been stated by others in the know in the posts above, Ann is dead-on correct in her analysis of the problem.

C'mon, (h)CB! Didn't you hear or read about
Chuckie Shumer on Imus the other day? Li'l Chuckie was blathering about the conditions at Reed when Imus interrupted and asked when was the last time Li'l Chuckie had been to Reed. Shumer started mumbling about it being before 9/11/01. In other words, one of the dhimmi-cRAT leaders has never been to visit the wounded troops he whines about caring so much about.

That is not pathetic, (h)CB. That is bathetic.

Coulterfan
An argument for government efficiency? Please! I would need more than medicare overhead percentages to prove that one!

Budget "cuts"
I'm not arguing that the VA budget has shrunk under Bush, but isn't a per capita requirement more meaningful than an abolute number? I don't know the figures, but I would be prepared to wager a significant amount of my personal wealth (it ain't a lot anyway!) that the number of veterans requiring treatment, either temporary or life long, has risen sharply under GWB. The total budget may have risen, but if the rate of requirement is rising faster then it does in fact constitute a budget cut.

And to disclose
I was a federal and state government employee, a government contractor, a military contractor and worked in private industry. I now work for a university. So, I have a little experience in this area, and I can say that projects which would have a 1 month deadline in the private sector often had a 2 year deadline in the federal government. So I do have some first hand experience with government efficiency, and can honestly say, I have yet to find any. (Sadly, the military bureaucracy -- logistics for example -- often has the same bureaucratic inertia I saw in the feds.)

vic and andrews plus MikeR
Vic beat us both to it! I replied to a post before reading the entire thread.


But MikeR has described the situation most accurately. This is a failure of the SYSTEM, inevitable and not surprising, considering that this is a government system, by its nature inefficient, that we are talking about. Incidentally, this is what Hillary and the other Democrat socialist yahoos want to impose on the entire nation, and it is inevitable IMO, because so many voters are both ignorant and greedy.

Buzzkat
You're right about it being systemic. The fed gov't is built with inherent inefficiencies, and not just because of unions.

First, to prevent nepotism, they instituted civil service bureaucracies, which sound great. But then they have to have safeguards to prevent pols from firing staff to hire friends. So we have a situation where it is increasingly difficult to fire anyone, even without the unions making it more difficult.

Then we have contractors, who are paid by the man-hour. Which means the contracting companies are interested in taking as long as possible and using as much staff as possible. Any increase in efficiency is actually a loss for the contractor.

And those are just two examples. I haven't worked in the gov't for a while (I worked at DOL during the Starr hearings, so it was a while ago), but when I ddi I had a list of dozens of practices that inevitably lead to decreased efficiency. Every one had a rationale behind it, and most even made some sense taken in isolation. But, taken as a whole, the hiring and personel policies of the federal gov't are a great example of the law of unintended consequences.

A solution
You want to see conditions improve in a hurry? All that's required is the following law: Members of Congress and their families are permitted to get health care ONLY at Walter Reed.

Watch the conditions improve in nothing-flat.


One reason
that Walter Reed is so over burdened is the excellent medical care our soldiers are getting in the field. Injuries that normally would have meant death are being treated with good medical personnel and better technology. Nothing ever gets mentioned about all the lives that are being saved.

The democraps could have visited WR at any point during the war, but just now they are erupting so they can have another brick to throw at Bush.

What would it be like to have one day without the Bush bashing festival in DC?

Peppermint
Is that an attempt to defend what is going on at Walter Reed? Because if it is it's hilarious. What, because they aren't bleeeding to death on an Iraqi street that justifies conditions at Walter Reed? Come off it.

Are the rest
of you here on TH still having problems with this site? It's driving me nuts.

Government better than Private - ROFL
ROFL.

"Government can do better things for less money"

Most ridiculous comment I've seen here (I pray it was a joke and I just didn't see you were beign ironic).

Its more ridiculous then the comment "Jimmy Carter was a good president".

Personally, I'd like to see them privatize healthcare for the military- let the HMO's compete for the business. The care will be better and our soldiers deserve it.

Course, I'm also for a pay increase for soldiers, additional benefits for their families, an increase in the death benefits for soldiers and I'd shoulder a tax hike (if necessary) to pay for it. OBviously, I'd rather do something like, drastically cut funding for something ridiculous like subsidizing artists and/or "focusing on green issues" but our soldiers are important enough that I'd pay a bit more in taxes to support them and our country.


yep
Thought it was a new programme designed to thwart liberal posters... you don't get this sort of trouble at the Daily Kos of Huffpost you know. They must pay their bills!

Critical Bill
Well, when they go back and delete the 18 pages of "Kill Cheney" quotes it must really lighten the laod on the PuffingtonHost servers. Makes it much easier for the admins.

CB
No one is defending what is going on at Reed. What rational people object to is the constant and immediate attempts by the do-nothing dem/libs to politicize every single problem that crops up. The exact same thing would have occurred if a Democrat were in the White House today (and yes, Republicans would be politicizing it). Get the point?

Reed vs Bethesda
Notice how the problems are all supposedly at Walter Reed Hospital, which is where the Army and most other ENLISTED personnel get sent when wounded overseas. Meanwhile, at the National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda, MD), the conditions are usually described as very good. That's where the OFFICERS, CONGRESSCRITTERS, SENATORS, PRESIDENTS, and SUPREMES get treated.

So sayeth the enlisted guy who got sent to Bethesda for ankle problems 4 times, but was told, "Here, have some Motrin and some shoe inserts." That was before the clinic at NAS JRB Ft Worth, TX, sent me to a sports medicine specialist who scoped the bad ankle and fixed the problem.

Libertarian:
That's a great idea. While we're at it, let's pull congress' retirement perks and put them on Socialist Security like the rest of us. Watch that one get fixed quickly too.


But why stop there? Any senator or congressman that votes for illegal alien amnesty will be required to move into a barrio, sandwiched between two illegal alien extended families. This way, they can get a feel for what they will be imposing on the rest of us.


Next, every school aged child of any member of congress will be subject to public school. They will also be required to take the bus.


I'm sure things will get cleaned up real fast. I'm dreaming, of course, our political elites being the clueless patricians they are.

andrews / buzzcat
Care to take me up on my budget cuts point?
And yes I do get the point about politicising it; as I said I would say the same thing if a Democrat was in charge. But rather than hold their hand up and say, yeah, the current admin got rumbled this is a disgrace, most Townhallers are making excuses or blaming liberals. Being in charge is about taking responsiblity.

I Know VA Hospitals
I had to visit numerous times various VA hospitals because all my elderly uncles had served (my great grandmother had 17 children, gulp!)and lived in VA hospitals/care facilties.

I was visting when Nixon was in the White house, also Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. A whole slew of Left and Right Wing Presidents, and honestly, the condition of these various facilities never ever changed no matter who was in office.

The places were filthy, urine infested, residents unattended, wheeled out into the hallway to face a wall, crying they needed help to go to the bathroom while 3-4 staff members were within ear shot, purposefully ignoring them, and talking about their weekends, laughing.

That was a constant. It was literally a deja vu for each visit.

To blame Bush for Reed is ridiculous. I'm sure Reed was terrible long before Bush ever grew chin hair. This was just a simple MSM opportunity to yet again give a slap on Bush, as usual.

The thing is, Bush upon the discovery didn't point fingers, as we all are. Bush decided to take matters into his own hands, which no other President did. Having one of the oversears as Bob Dole is a fabulous start for so many reasons.

As far as givernment cicilian workers, yes...Some really need to be fired, and they are not. Some are considered "untouchable" and they know it, and we know the reasons why. Even outside of VA hopsitals, have you ever tried to call your county customer service because you have questions on your property tax bill? It's a nightmare of illiterate, angry and hostile people who service the public, and I got hung up on numerous times simply because they couldn't answer my questions....

Go figure. There should be strictor penalities on this type of behavior in order to fire unproductive workers. They service all of us, they should be held to the same standards as we all are when we are at our jobs. If we acted like some of the government workers do, we would be fired. They need to be as well.


Rats in Washington
Ann -

As always you cut to the chase and put the blame squarely where it belongs [when it comes to government services].
As an Army vet still serving with almost 30 years under my belt, I've lost track of the number of times over the years I've gone out of my way and avoided dealing with government employees of all types. This is ironic since, as a governemt employee myself, most all of my support comes from some other government agency.
Many a time, over the years, I've done without or provided for myself, much to my personal detriment, rather than deal with the often mind-numbing bureacracy involved in governemt agencies and services. In those instances and circumstances where it simply could not be avoided, I usually cringe at the thought of having to be extra polite and suffer without complaint just to ensure I'm provided what I'm entitled to in the first place. Heaven forbid I should inadvertantly provoke an employee's ire and not receive the assistance they're paid to provide.

Military commanders are under constant microscopic oversight from Congress and the IG (Inspector General) and must answer for the most trivial of complaints from soldiers. They are also directly responsible and accountable for the actions of their Soldiers both on and off the battlefield. Too bad the same cannot be said of unionized employees.

Keep up the good work!!!!

SFC Lyle Webb

coulterfan
More Libdolt claptrap! Please explain for all of us how exactly all of those responsible for Walter Reed were exclusively Republican. The problem at WR is is not a partisan issue no matter how hard you libtards try to turn it into one. WR is the end product one gets when our Congress (controlled by Dimocraps for 40 of the last 50 years so they must "share" in the blame) makes it virtually impossible to terminate civil servants so the incentive to do their jobs is removed. I mean come on - everyone in this country knows that. It has been a standard joke for years across the country. To say otherwise is to be disingenuous. And to use PMSNBC as a source is ludicrous.

Regarding Administrative costs for Medicare I suggest you go here: http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf to get additional information.

You will find a comparison of the Admin cost of Medicare to HMO/insurance there. They found that
it was very difficult to do a real comparison of Medicare’s true costs with those of the insurance industry because "the primary problem is that private sector insurers must track and divulge their administrative costs, while most of Medicare’s administrative costs are hidden or completely ignored by the complex and bureaucratic reporting and tracking systems used by the government." The paper shows that "average private sector administrative costs, about 8.9 percent – and 16.7 percent when commission, premium tax, and profit are included – are significantly lower than the numbers frequently cited." And "Because of the higher cost per beneficiary, Medicare administrative costs appear lower than they really are. If the numbers were adequately “handicapped” for comparison with the private sector, they would be in the 6 to 8 percent range." "Finally, like the private sector, Medicare also has to obtain funds to pay claims. But the cost of raising that money, or borrowing it if the government doesn’t collect it from taxpayers, is excluded from Medicare administrative cost calculations." Management and facility costs are also excluded from the cost calculation as well.

Your claim that Goverment employees can do things better and cheaper than the private sector is way beyond laughable - it is pure fantasy. Apparently you are one of the only Americans who have missed that fact. And of course as a good libiot you brought Halibutton into the discussion. I want to say this one more time for libdrools: Despite it's shortcomings Halibutron is the only US firm that can do what the Government asked it to do in Iraq! There were few if any alternatives. Period. What is so hard about that for you people?


wounded soldiers care
There are a few people calling for the privatisation of care for wounded soldiers. I believe that would be a disaster - and yes I do believe that the majority of wounded veterans do get good care and attention. But to seperate government from the care of veterans wounded while following orders is wrong. If soldiers are wounded while going about the duties given to them by their government, that government must accept responsiblity for that. And that means providing ongoing post-combat care, whatever that may entail. To farm it out to private contractors is wrong - because their responsiblity is to shareholders and investors, not the soldiers. There is nothing wrong with soldiers paying for separate healthcare but the reality is that insurance premiums would be sky high. I mean, if you're running a health insurance company are you going to insure thousands of GIs? Maybe, but only if you can make a profit out of doing it. Government has to accept that if it is going to send soldiers to war then it must be prepared to pay for that, as must tax payers. Seriously, does anyone think that private health insurance for a soldier in Iraq is going to be affordable? If it's not, then what? Give them a bit of lucky heather before they get on the plane?

Critical Bill
And my point was that the idea that increased spending is a "cut" if less than requested is simply absurd.

And, yes, you may be correct that per capita spending is down, but, that may be because of this "war" thing I heard about. Seems there is some sort of conflict in Iraq which may be increasing the number of men needing medical treatment. So, I think measuring per capita spending during war time and comparing it to peace time expenditures from the last administration may be just a clever way to make the numbers look bad for the current administration.

And, yes, ideally we should increase funding during war time to match the exact increase in casualties, but, you may realize, during was time almost all rescources get stretched a bit thin, so sometimes the real and the ideal diverge more than we would like.

Critical Bill
That is just wrong to say the private medical care is responsible to shareholders. A private company is responsible first to its CUSTOMERS, which is why their service is always much better than the public sector.
If a company thinks of shareholders before customers, neither will be happy with the outcome.

Federal
Being in the military for almost 20 years, I've seen many GS types over the years. I've met a handful of smart, hardworking federal civilians, but the great majority were worthless.

And I'm sure the conditions at Walter Reed didn't become bad overnight. The inertia of the federal government is huge. This is typical MSM - there are only homeless people when Republicans are in the White House, and so forth.


To ALL
One other thing that everyone should remember, the problem that was described initially was NOT Walter Reed itself, but the Outpatient Care Facility. Walter Reed itself was described as pretty good by the soldiers there.

This whole thing reminds me of an episode I had back when I was in the Navy. We had just came back from overseas and I got my "over 4 physical". They found spots on my lungs from the x-ray on the ship. They told me I had TB and I was shipped off of that ship to Oaknole so fast that my skivvies were still left in sickbay. The docs at Oaknole when viewed the ex-rays asked me what part of the South I was from while laughing at the doctors on the ship. It seems that there is a certain type of weed in the South that causes harmless spots on the lungs and it is easily discernable from TB.

The point is, the degree of care is really dependent on the quality of your attending physician.

Kimberly
I'll do your work for you since I'm in a good mood.

Bush lied, Halliburton is crooked, no WMD, quagmire in Iraq, Ann Coulter is an ugly, anorexic witch.

You're welcome.

Bobbit
I used to work for a medical information company and I can second your statement about the difficulty of comparison. Every private insurer uses UB92 forms to reprot data. Medicare/Medicaid uses their own MEDPAR reproting system, which lacks a lot of the information we received from private insurers. It was always a headache to build databases incorporating both types of data and to try to get a meaningful result.

AzPhil
You forgot to say "bloviate".

I know Kimberly, I have read Kimbewrly, and, you sir are no Kimberly.

andrews
It's not a "clever" way of showing per capita spending on veterans has fallen - it's the ONLY way of showing it. Looking at the figures on the link posted by buzzkat, the VA budget has risen 37.5 per cent since GWB took charge. OK, that's a big jump, for sure. But what about the jump in those requiring treatment? How much is that up by? I don't know, but a conservative estimate would be at least 500 per cent. Is that fair? I don't know but if there are any figures I would be interested to see them. As Rummy said, you go to war with the army you have. And so by that rationale you go to war with the post-combat care that you have. Oh, and cut taxes at the same time. Demand for care has grossly outstripped the VA's ability to deliver care, there is no denying that. And for that, this administration has no-one to blame but itself.

Report
At least my typos are consistent. So, just read every 'reprot" as "report".

To andrews/AzPhil
Please guys, I was eating lunch and now I have ham and cheese sandwich all over the screen.

Andrews
Thanks - I can't believe I left out "bloviate". Such a stupid mistake! I'll try to atone later.

Kimberly, Kimberly, where art thou, Kimberly?

Critical Bill
I think we may be able to blame our enemties for the increase in needs for care.

I also think you far overestimate the amount of care required. By any standard the casualty numbers are low for a war. I think the ongoing care for veterans is many times the number of cases that we have from battle casualties, so I doubt the number has increased even 100%, much less the 500% you suggest.

Really, just consider the number of WWII and Vietnam vets needing care and compare to the numer of dead and wounded. they aren't even close.

Apologies
Didn't mean to omit Korean, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War or other vets in my list. Just that WWI are the oldest (needing the most expensive care) and (at the moment) Vietnam vets seem the most numerous, so I chose those two examples.

Ooops
Should read "WWII" are the oldest. Of course WWI would be the oldest, but not very many of them left any longer, so I meant to say "WWII"

andrews
Yes I accept that private companies need to look after their customers as well as shareholders. But the concept of private health cover for soldiers is unworkable. Is your health cover expensive? And you work at a computer screen in a university. I think it'll be a little dearer for a soldier patrolling the streets of Baghdad, and I should think the average GI earns a fraction of your salary. Government has to carry the can.
And wounded vets up only 100 per cent since GWB took over? Don't make me laugh. There are over 17,000 wounded vets from the campaign in Iraq on top of over 3,000 dead. Yes they are low for a war, I don't dispute that. But we're talking about the VA's budget here and the per capita care required. Are you seriously trying to tell me that during Clinton's tenure there were more than 8,000 servicemen wounded? You're joking?

CB
Two points:

The problems at Reed apparently reside at an outpatient facility. The problems are compounded by the fact that Reed has been slated for closure, which means that scarce resources are being allocated elsewhere. So again, this is not a political problem but a systemic one. The Chief Executive of the U.S. may nominally be ultimately responsible but it is hardly realistic to expect him to be the micromanager of this isue and numerous others.


Your attack against privatization (yet again) is specious. There is no evidence that a medical facility run by unaccountable government bureaucrats performs better or gives better health care than a private, for profit, competitive facility. Of course, the government should be responsible for picking up the costs of health care for veterans and all military personnel, but this is a separate issue. As with government schooling, it would be better to have the money follow the patient (or student, which is what is done in Europe!!) rather than follow the facility or bureaucracy.

andrews and Lynne
That's right, the casualties and deaths are way down from other wars.

Lynne, You're right. It must be the overseas connection bogging the site down.

And God help us if Hillary gets into office and we get government health care. Or the Breck girl who wants government health care. All the doctors will run out of the country for fear of lawsuits.


Lynne
I forgot to ask you. Is the march still on for the 17th in DC?

CB
Can't let you get away with this one: "Oh, and cut taxes at the same time."

Taxes were not cut, tax RATES were. These tax RATE cuts have resulted in record revenues to the government. Get it? The government is receiving more tax payments than at any time in history. Stop repeating this Leftist hogwash mantra and look at the facts for a change.

Lynne
Another reply to your comment. I believe we won our independence from the Brits centuries ago and I see no reason that we have to explain ourselves to them about anything.

Buzzkat
Touche on the tax rates point. I stand corrected. There you go. But I'm not sure I can agree with you about the outsourcing of veterans healthcare. Swapping one inefficiant and corrupt system for another doesn't make much sense. Just look at Halliburton (liberal bogeyman I know but bear with me) - the rank stench of profits ahead of everything else will waft all the way from Dubai, I can assure you. Better to fix the problem than to sweep it under the carpet by outsourcing it to profitable, private companies whose track record of providing a decent service is debateable to say the least.

CB and Buzzkat
As I always say (with regard to taxes), I'd rather have 25% of a 12-inch pie than 35% of a 9-inch pie.

I've seen private and public medical care. with the former, at least if it's bad, you can fire them. I'd rather take my chances on someone who's working for a profit than on a civil servant with no positive motivation (money) or negative motivation (military doctors can't be sued for malpractice, even when it's obvious).

andrews
That was stinkin' funny! To clear up an issue that you are having with CB, let me say this. Medical insurance companies are BANKS! They are in it only for the money. It is all just numbers and actuarial tables to them. Their product just happens to be health care. They care about their customers' money and little else. In fact, they do not directly market to consumers but, rather, to their employers. The marketing always centers on keeping costs down. And to CRITICAL BILL- privatising (your language) the military health care system would not mean assigning each servicemember an allowance for healthcare. It would involve, at the least, civilian doctors and nurses etc. filling in where military members once did. At the most, it would be either a VA-like system or some weird single-payer system like the Dems here want for all of us. The individual soldiers would not go out into the marketplace and contract individually for health care- that is a totally unfounded proposition.

The Crawfish
Good to see you back-it's been awhile. I believe that your post about care at Bethesda vs Reed merely demonstrates the superiority of Navy medicine over the other, lesser branches.

Critical Bill
At last something from you that I agree with. Junking the military health care system is not the solution. However, I can relate that, in private practice (profit motive) I work a lot harder and go out of my way a lot more for the patient and their family. Part of it is the money motive but the other part is developing a relationship with patients that is generally not developed in the military. I may be profit driven, but the desire for this profit encourages me to act in ways that are directly positive on patient care and, more importantly, satisfaction. By the way, the Bush tax cuts increased not only overall revenues but increased the proportion that the "rich" pay from 64% to 66%. So that's fair- 10% of the population pay 2/3 of the taxes while the bottom 50% pay about 3.6%. That sounds just about right to me! Let's stick it to the man!

VA vs. Army
I've seen this throughout the media and these blogs. The Army and the Veteran's Affairs are two separate entities, NOT CONNECTED administratively. Walter Reed is an Army Hospital, hence Army Generals were relieved of duty. It is NOT a VA hospital. If you're going to slam an organization, slam the right one. This is not (in this case) a VA problem.
And I agree with MikeR. W-R was due to close and you don't dump tax dollars into a closed facility. IMHO this is just another non-issue over-hyped by the media and the Dems are just jumping on the band wagon (again).

Retired AF / Current Contractor

CB
Sure, swapping an inefficient and corrupt system for another inefficient and corrupt system would make no sense (obviously). But that's not what we're talking about, or rather, I don't accept your definition of a privatized system. The privatized system would be ACCOUNTABLE, both to the government and its stockholders, therefore it would not be inefficient. And if the law is enforced and there is oversight (which did not happen with Enron, by the way, for example), then the corruption factor (whatever that is) would not be a concern either.

Not quite sure what Halliburton with its alleged misdeeds (which seem to have mostly occurred with corrupt foreign subcontractors from an inherently sordid region of the world) has to do with this.


Gotta go, we'll talk another day, and have a pint or two of bitters for me!

Here you are
Well, looks like I had to slide over to the Ann Coulter article to find some wingnuts to talk to.

I perused the site and found one article buried on the US Attorneygate with only two comments - I was hoping to learn what the wingnuts had to say about the scandal of the week - this is a biggie (but amazingly not the worst thing Gonzalez has done)

Or I wanted to see what were your thoughts on Halliburton moving to Dubai

Or the reports that wounded soldiers are being sent to Iraq again

Or Libby (oh, that was so last weeks scandal)

So I had to find all the nuts huddled in the Coulter column bashing Dems for Walter Reed because of Civil Service rules. Come on!

You people should read the following article on the Coulterization of America - it is scary for the wing nuts and their prospects of survival. Here is the link and an excerpt:

"For this isn't really about Coulter at all. This is about a pact the American right made with the devil, a pact the devil is now coming to collect on. American conservatism sold its soul to the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world to gain power, and now that its ideology has been exposed as empty and its leadership incompetent and corrupt, free-floating hatred is the only thing it has to offer. The problem, for the GOP, is that this isn't a winning political strategy anymore -- but they're stuck with it. They're trapped. They need the bigoted and reactionary base they helped create, but the very fanaticism that made the True Believers such potent shock troops will prevent the Republicans from achieving Karl Rove's dream of long-term GOP domination."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/13/coulter/index_np.html

and by the way - it is Clinton's fault.


Sean
Salon is always good for some laughs - thanks!

Sean
Good grief. You're posting a comment from that liberal nutwing site salon.com? Please, get a life. You don't need to come over here and see nutwings. You've got plenty over on that site.

btw, Clinton fired all the AGs when he was POTUS.

Incentive
Apparently the Fed's are working on implementing a system whereby employee's are paid on a merit basis. Okay, read that again. The existing system does not reward civil servants for doing well, it is based on tenure and position.

Civil servants are (in general) focused on not messing up, rather than finding ways to do the job better. This isn't to say that civil servants don't work hard or that they are bad employee's. The system is set-up to reward those who don't make waves and don't make mistakes. When that is the reality, you get people who don't really care about improving the way they do things.

I have worked with a large number of Federal Agencies and everyone I have worked with, from the top down, has clearly demonstrated their lack of desire to improve the way things are done. I personnally think the system breeds it out of those idealistic young whippersnappers.

Complete the implementation of merit based compensation. Make it easier to set performance benchmarks and terminate those who don't measuer up. Run the various agencies as if they were "for profit" rather than governmental entities and you will see some amazing things.

I have hired former Federal civil servants and they all have told me the same thing; we weren't allowed to improve things. They then state in wonder that it is amazing that now they actually get rewarded for finding and fixing inefficiencies.

As to Walter Reed, I still don't understand why our veterans aren't insured by the US and allowed to use whatever hospital they chose. I spent time in a VA hospital and will never again set foot in one (oh, that was when Clinton was in power).

Mint
I read up on Slick Willie's firings. People defend him because a) he fired all of them, and b) it was "customary". Upon further review, however, he fired all of them because he desperately wanted a couple of them gone, and was trying to cover his tracks. Also, he was the first president to fire them all from the get-go; presidents to that point had let them leave by attrition so as not to lose all the experience at one time.

But, I wouldn't put anything past someone who would laugh coming out of a funeral, including being the reasaon Ron Brown was dead to begin with.

Peppermint
I know this has been all over the ether, but you clearly missed it so I'll enlighten you. When Clinton fired all the attorneys he was merely following the usual form when a new administratino takes over. Reagan did the same to Carter's attorneys and I think GWB did the same to Clinton's. It is what is expected when a new administration takes over. what Gonzalez has done is completely different. There is no comparison to Clinton getting rid of Bush senior's appointments.

And
If what Clinton did waas not the form, why has no Conservative bothered mentioning it until now? If it were not the norm, I assume someone can point me to Republican criticism of it from the time? There must be something on the old world wide web...

CB
I read that Willie was the first to axe all of them at once, and that other presidents might have chipped a few away, but not the whole lot. I could be wrong - it wouldn't be a first. I'd like to know one way or the other, frankly.

Either way, so what if Bush did have a few attorneys fired? Why is this such a big story, when every president before him has done the same thing?

amazing
What I find amazing is that how ignorant this country has become. People simply do not know how civil service works, government, let alone politics. Yet, they think they are the authority on everything. As to bleeding heart liberal fool...guess what I live here in liberal land(SF Bay Area) and the term "faggot" is used profusely! Clean up your back yard first.

AZPhil
You are right, Clinton fired all the AGs when he was POTUS. There is no reason for anyone to be getting their socks all twisted up over a few AG firings now. It's just another bash Bush celebration. Even on one of the MSM channels last night I caught one of the commentators even pointing this out, how Clinton fired all of them. So, even the MSM, at least some of them can see the double standard.

AZPhil
I'm only repeating what I've read elsewhere; I too could be wrong and that wouldn't be a first either. Isn't that what we all do on these threads anyway?? There does seem to be some confusion over this explanation but I don't know how you'd go about clearing it up. Whoever provides an explanation is bound to have it and its source rubbished anyway so I guess we'll never know! But I think the problem the Bush admin has created for itself is that the political reasons behind it seem to have been leaked. However, if Republican senators are calling for Gonzalez's head there must be something fishy - and as I said, I'm still to see evidence of conservative outrage at Clinton's actions rom the time.

Mint
Speaking of MSM, I read (not on MSM, of course), that the violence in Iraq has diminished greatly of late.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw Brian Williams on NBC leading off with "Once again, we're forced to lead off with another story about soldiers dying in Iraq", or words to that effect. He even had the same fake hound-dog sad look Slick Willie used to use at funerals. If the sun hadn't still been up, I would have thought I was watching Saturday Night Live!

AZPhil
Another thing I forgot to say in my last comment is that all the AGs serve at the discretion of the President, so any of them can be fired at any time.

sean
Speaking of idiots, swing by my blog below and hear the hero of the left, Breck Boy John Leftwards, on video, yammer about Global Warming. I guess he's trying to pick up where Al Gore left off. Maybe a few bucks for him to skim, after all, he's an experienced ambulance chaser!

BTW, salon carries about as much weight here as a wikipedia reference! haha.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/

CB
All of your points are duly noted. My point is just that this story is getting a lot of attention compared with the impact it has on anyone...and that similar action taken in 1993 was ignored by the MSM entirely.

As far as the original item (Walter Reed), just as a 300-lb person didn't get that way overnight, the conditions at a huge medical center didn't deteriorate in a day or two, either. It's just funny how the media picks now to talk about it. They don't care about soldiers, they just want yet another opportunity to throw mud on Bush.

I think you are across the Atlantic from me, but if you have access to old papers online, check out the number of stories on the homeless in America during Reagan's term (and Bush 1), then again when Willie was in, and now again with a Republican in the White House. I think the problem is actually fairly constant, but the MSM over here would have you believe it's like the tides...and it's always high tide when republicans are at the helm.

AZPhil
Yeah, on Fox they have been reporting how the violence has gone way down in Anbar provence. Car bombs, shootings, and in general violence is way down. This was reported by the AP, of all things.
And General Petraeus said things will probably get even better when he gets the extra troops. He doesn't even have all the surge troops as yet.
Also, the report said that people are back in the streets shopping and going about their business again.

But, on CNN, I saw two promos for the "Iraq War is Lost" that Paula was going to run.

The MSM continues to beat the drum of losing no matter what is going on in Iraq. We have to lose for their sake and the dimocraps.

VA Hospitals
were notoriously BAD during the war that LBJ expanded (Vietnam). Not to mention that a military hating democratic controlled Congress cut back funding for Vietnam Vets from 1972 onward.

Where was the outcry THEN libs?

BTW, as ONE WHO USES THE V.A., I've found them to be professional and decent albeit a tad slow. Not the kind of care that our elitist elected officials get at Bethesda but WAYYYYYYY better than British/Canuck/Cuban socialized medicine.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/countriesandregions/canada/medicinecana.html
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/sociCaliz.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/01/reality_strikes_british_social.html

Gunny
Think about this: the Edwards and Gore houses together are about the size of Rhode Island. Add in the CO2 emitted from Owlgore (and his planes) constantly, and finally, the Breck Girl's hairspray. Eliminate those, and we may see global warming eliminated!

AZPhil
I'll try to look it up on Lexis Nexis - so long as that is considered a good enough source. Will post any results I find - I'm referring to Clinton and the AGs that is. I think it's a story because it appears to have been done for reasons of political loyalty rather than performance or competance - and therein lies the problem.

AZPhil
Swing by my blog (check the link I posted) and I've posted several articles on the success going on in Iraq right now yet you won't hear a PEEP of it on the MSM!

GunnyG
Yeah, you've got a lot of good stuff on your blog and the libs should take a look at it and see what really goes on in the world outside of salon.com

AZPhil
And throw on muzzle on both Hitlary and Chappaquiddick Ted, and we'd have the hot air angle solved!

As we're on the hair topic
perhaps Romney could solve the world's energy shortages by donating some of the grease in his hairpiece...

Mint
Points taken - I personally know two guys who have been in Iraq, and both say it was nowhere near as bad as the MSM claims.

The way to win there is to stop fighting like puzzies. Ruthlessly destroy the bad guys. Public opinion (MSM-driven) makes that harder, but I say go in, kick tail, and leave.

Just the amount
of CO2 coming out of Gore's overheated, sweaty, sleazy body is enough to cause problems. All we need to do to fix the problem is for him to keep his mouth shut and stop bloviating about things he is no expert on.

CB
Lexis Nexis is fair - some radio hosts used to use it to catch Clinton in lies roughly every day.

I appreciate the disagreeing without heaving mud, BTW. Maybe you could get the memo to Kim?

AZPhil
Amen. No war should be fought PC. I've heard the same thing from some soldiers too.


To all,
Oh, come to my blog if you want to find out who is really in charge of GW.
http://www.peppermintsplace.townhall.com

Gunny and Mint
Gunny - two of my best friends ever are are a retired Top, USMC, and retired WO, USMC. I'm in the AF but they made me an honorary devil dog long ago.

Pepper - Kimbat will be furious that you beat her to the word "bloviate" today!!! However, I'm about to go to lunch and didn't need the visual referring to Owlgore's sweaty body. Yecch!

Critical Bill
No, my point is 17,000 wounded service men is far less than the total number of people serviced by the VA. If you included all people serviced by the VA, adding 17000 is not even a 100% increase. think of all the veterans the VA services and adding 17,000 is nowhere near a doubling.

I was not saying 17,000 is not a latrge increase in active duty casualties, I was saying 17000 is a small increase in the total population being actively serviced by the VA. By and large, their single largest base of customers is retirees, not military casualties.

Second, I dispute that a health insurance company is "a bank" who can ignore customer wishes. Even banks can't ignore customer wishes. I know many like to think certain sizes or types of business are divorced from market forces, but none are (unless by government protection). If a business must have customers it has to please those customers, whether it is a bank, an insurer or a shoe store.

AZPhil
Oh, I'm more than capable of mudslinging. Fight mud with mud, I reckon. Ask Lynne why she no longer acknowledges me! But being polite every once in a while never hurt anyone.

AZPhil
Sorry. Take a paper bag along. It always helps to be ready.
Yeah, I figured I'd beat Kimbat to it.

Peppermint
I hear you. Part of the problem I've noticed from being in the military is with precision bombs, people now EXPECT virtually no casualties. (well, Americans anyway). We carpet-bombed Germany and Vietnam and that was accepted, much more so in WW2, of course. But now, the bad guys hide behind our rules and hole up in mosques, etc.

Ask yourself which would get more bad publicity:

1) We invade Iraq in 2003, kill the bad guys with a few innocents, leave nothing standing in places like Fallujah, then leave in 2005 with 1500 Americans killed, but a stable government in Iraq. or

2) What we're doing now.

The answer is, nothing succeeds like success. Some liberal bedwetters would be in tears if we attacked a mosque, but they wouldn't like anytihng we did. As far as the other side, all they respect is force.

Rememebr 1991-92 in Desert Storm? I do. we went in, wreaked havoc, and left. THAT President Bush had a 90% approval ratnig right after that. See my point?


Been there, seen that
I worked for 7.5 years at a VA medical center, in their Information Resource Management Service. As the only person on-call for about 4 of those years for the computer system, I had plenty of opportunities to observe my fellow employees' inaction.

Typical call would be my pager going off around midnight. I'd return the call and have to go into the medical center to fix it. Since it was after normal hours, I'd have to go in through the Emergency Room doors.

Inside, I'd have to pass through an area called "Evaluation," where the patients would wait for their turn to talk to someone to determine what, if anything, the VA could/would do to help them. The waiting room there has several rows of seats, with televisions hanging from the ceiling, so the veterans could be moderately entertained while waiting interminably for their turn.

As I walked through Eval, I'd see several members of the Housekeeping staff sitting in those chairs, watching TV.

Fast-forward to 3am, after the problem was fixed and everything was verified working again, I'd have to pass back through Eval to get to my car. i would see the same people sitting in the same places as I had at midnight.

Any questioning of these government employees would result in "we're on our break!" and dirty looks.

Oh, and I smoked at the time. I'd have to head through the same place to light one up, so I was passing through the area between arriving and leaving. Same faces, same places.

Government employees should not have guaranteed jobs. The original intent was to protect government employees from cronyism and political patronage. However, it has, instead, exacerbated the problem, as the political patronage is worse than it ever was.

Critical Bill
Re Gonzales:

I think the "right wing" senators calling for Gonzales' head is an MSM driven event. They say Gonzales did something wrong, and a few soft-headed R's from lefty R states (Maine, for example) start caving in and saying "where there's smoke there's fire" and call for "hearings" to allow the more liberal senators to stage a witch hunt.

Just because a few senators caved when the media chummed the waters doesn't mean anything is going on, or anything beyond a media hyped non-event.

Peppermint
The Bushies added language to the 2006 Patriot Act to permit interim appointment of US Attorneys without Senate approval - this was done ostensibly for purposes of an emergency - not to purge prosecutors who were not "loyal" to Bush

He then used that language to purge US Attorneys he had originally appointed because they were resisting the politicization of their job.

This conduct is unprecedented in out history. Have you read the emails released by Justice?

What's the Matter with Kansas? Peppermint. How can you not be outraged by this revelation? The willful ignorance of the righties is doing tremendous harm to this country. What has happened to the republican party? I just don't get it.


andrews
OK yes I take your point. But perhaps we can look at it another way - in terms of the VA's ability to cope with a surge in critical injuries that require intensive treatment, either surgical or pharmaceutical, and its budget. The overwhelming majority of longer term (ie those in care prior to the current Iraq campaign) VA patients are presumably well past the age of retirement and require relatively low cost treatment - generic drugs, low impact surgery and lower intensity recovery. The surge seen in the last three years is, largely, high impact high cost patients - severed limbs, severe trauma wounds and the like, something the VA has not had to deal with in any quantity since Vietnam. The survival rate in Iraq is much higher for a number of reasons, which despite being a very good thing also puts more strain on the service. I would argue that a 37.5 per cent rise in funding is probably insufficient to cope with the surge in patients and the services they require, the drugs that they require and the rehabilitation that they require. Therefore the VA, despite its budget increase, is underfunded.

Gunny G
What do you think about Wolfowitz agreeing that we need to deal with global climate change.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/15/wolfowitz-on-warming/

Not exactly a tree hugger now is he. You people will believe anything peddled by Fox and neocons.

Critical Bill
Actually, the aged are the highest cost group. Even including military casualties. Treating burns, crushes and amputations is easier and cheaper than long term treatment for cancer, heart disease, dementia, etc. It seems dramatic, but the costs of treating war injuries don't compare to repeated courses of chemotherapy along with associated convalescent center care, round the clock skilled nursing care, etc. Most of the war injuries will leave the facilities in under a year, most elderly patients will never leave the system completely, though they will survive a number of years after entering.

It seems war injuries should cost more, being more dramatic, but taking care of an aging population is much, much more costly, sometime because of heroic measures required near the end of life, sometimes because of the total of all the small costs imposed by aging patients.

Lastly, my point was that you said the spending droppe dper capita because of all the extra patients. My point was that spending increased, and the population increase was much less dramatic than you suggested, so I think you far overstate the drop per capita, if such a drop even took place.

Anyone know what date
Clinton fired the atorneys? Funnily enough my search on Lexis Nexis under "CLinton" and "Attorneys" is returning rather a lot of hits!

To CB and other Libs
What in the 4 corners of H*ll has the non-story involving attorny firings have to do with this thread?

To Sean; who said that Bush or Wolferpiss was a conservative AND GW is on the other thread.

Vic
Take a hike. This is something AZPhil and I have been discussing. And I believe he isn't a liberal, but he does have a civil tongue in his head unlike you. Or civil fingers on his keyboard.

Speaking of RATS
Here's one for you to fax your rep about. The dims are so concerned about our soldiers that they want to divert monies to the following:


Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has introduced S. 774 The DREAM ACt of 2007, that grants in-state tuition and amnesty to illegal aliens under the age of 21 who have been physically present in the country for five years and are in college, have a high school diploma or a GED. Such a reward for illegal immigration serves as an incentive for more illegal immigration.

You can find this fax by proceeding to
http://www.numbersusa.com

Kimberly, BHL, et al = Geico Commercial
You know the one which goes like this:

Host: If it is three am in London, then

Contestant: It is winter in Bogata.

Host: The inverse of blue is

Contestant: 7

Host: The molecular weight of gold is

Contestant: Grapefruit.

They seem to be able to equate any "negative" they percieve to be Bush's fault. It they didn't like that the square root of 81 is 9, it's Bush's fault. You can't argue with people who live in the left field nose bleeds, because logical thinking is not only impossible for them, it is not found in their beings. You can only smile, nod your head, and hope they don't procreate.

AZPhil
I have found 732 references to Janet Reno's mass dismissals from March 1993, the month when they were fired. I'll post a couple for you, especially as it seems to have made Vic wet his pants. This from the Fort Lauderdale Sentinel:

RITUAL SWEEP SNAGS RENO IN POLITICS

SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. 12A

LENGTH: 328 words

Janet Reno presumably was armed with a mandate to replace partisan politics with professionalism when she took charge of the Clinton administration's Justice Department.
But her first major decision as attorney general has raised the dismaying suspicion that only the party label has changed at the nation's highest law- enforcement agency.



Reno's demand for the nearly immediate resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys held over from the Bush administration is fairly standard procedure for an incoming attorney general, although attorneys involved in trials or significant investigations customarily are spared from the broom until they complete their duties.
This time, however, the ritual housecleaning at Justice appears to carry some significant political overtones in at least one uncompleted inquiry.

Jay Stephens, the holdover U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., has spent much of the last two years investigating the campaign finances and possible link to the House Post Office scandal of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a player crucial to the passage of President Bill Clinton's economic proposals.

Stephens, a Republican with a penchant for political infighting and a flair for self-promotion, has gone public with the suggestion that his removal might be intended to lower the heat on Rostenkowski.

Reno should act quickly to dispel that impression. While she is certainly justified in wishing to choose a staff of attorneys who share her strong commitments to civil rights, environmental protection and determined prosecution of violent and white-collar criminals, she also should be acutely aware of the political implications of all her actions.

With or without Stephens in charge, the Rostenkowski investigation must continue to be a high-priority case for the Justice Department, vigorously pursued by an attorney whose integrity is matched only by his or her independence.




Atlanta ~Journal and Constitution
So it would appear that there is an element of truth to both arguments. Firstly, what Reno did was not outside the bounds of normal behaviour but it was also not without controversy. Whoever wrote that the normal form was to phase attorneys out was would appear to be correct. However, getting rid of them all was expected.


No rush to replace attorneys

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Section G; Page 6

LENGTH: 565 words



The Clinton administration is badly mishandling what ought to be a routine step in the consolidation of its power. In the process, it has raised disturbing doubt about its commitment to running a politically untainted Justice Department. Unless it changes course, it may also endanger the progress of a critically important corruption investigation here in Atlanta.

Last week, Attorney General Janet Reno announced that she was requesting the resignations of all U.S. attorneys appointed by the Bush administration. The attorneys were told that they may be dismissed within 10 days, although Ms. Reno promised that the transition would be conducted "in a very orderly way . . . that does not impact on any pending matter."
By her announcement, Ms. Reno hoped to present the image of an incoming official seizing control of her new department. But that wasn't how it came across. U.S. attorneys are always replaced when a new party takes control, but in most cases the transition occurs gradually, as replacements are selected. Ms. Reno is nowhere near having replacements ready. The odd hastiness of Ms. Reno's announcement gave it an air of desperation. It also inspired unfortunate speculation that it had been motivated by politics.

The current U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jay Stephens, is investigating corruption charges against one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress, House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago. President Clinton is counting heavily on Mr. Rostenkowski to help shepherd his economic program through Congress, and an indictment would render him useless in that role.

In her confirmation hearing, Ms. Reno promised to restore public confidence in a Justice Department that had been greatly politicized. But if she removes Mr. Stephens before he can finish his work, she creates the impression that one political bias is merely being replaced by another.

That danger was reinforced when White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos announced that Ms. Reno's resignation order would apply to every U.S. attorney not actively involved in an important trial. That policy statement, if true, should have come from Ms. Reno.

The fact that it came from the White House indicates that it was a White House decision, reached for White House reasons. If the Stephanopoulos rule is enforced, Mr. Stephens will be replaced soon. So will U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley here in Atlanta.

Last week, Mr. Whitley announced the indictment of a concessionaire at Hartsfield International Airport on charges that he had attempted to bribe two Atlanta City Council members.

The indictment adds to fears that a broad scandal may be brewing at the city-run airport. Mr. Whitley ought to be allowed to complete his investigation of the scandal, which has cast a substantial cloud over airport operations. Until the general outlines of the case become clear, for example, it will be difficult to attract a new administrator to the airport. The scandal has already made it clear that the new airport chief will have to come from outside local government.

Likewise, Mr. Stephens ought to be given every opportunity to complete the investigation of Mr. Rostenkowski. If Mr. Stephens is removed, and the case against the Chicago Democrat is either not pursued or is lost at trial, charges of political manipulation will be inescapable.



one last one
You can breathe easy Vic - but had to post at least one response from what I assume is a liberal paper - The Seatte Post-Intel something

JANET RENO ACTS FAST

SECTION: EDITORIAL LENGTH: SHORT : Pg. A14

LENGTH: 165 words



The positions of U.S. attorneys - the chief prosecutors in each federal court jurisdiction - are and always have been political jobs, filled by presidential appointments. That is why virtually all of the nation's current 93 U.S. attorneys are Republican presidential appointees.

It is no surprise, therefore, that new U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno has asked for the resignations of all U.S. attorneys, clearing the way for President Clinton to name his own federal prosecutors.
Any U.S. attorney with an appreciation of political protocol ought to have submitted his or her resignation to the White House already. Among those who have is U.S. Attorney for Western Washington Mike McKay, who was appointed by George Bush. McKay will leave his post on April 23 to return to private law practice here.

If there is anything unusual about Reno's request it is the speed with which she has acted. That can be read as a positive sign of an activist, no-nonsense attorney general.


Skip
I'm still laughing from your post. :-)

Vic
The Attorneygate scandal has nothing to do with this thread. I just wanted to get the persepctive of the winfnut crowd and I usually find them hovering around a Coulter column.

You also state: "To Sean; who said that Bush or Wolferpiss was a conservative AND GW is on the other thread."

I don't know what this means - any noone has responded to the fact that hardcore rightie Wolfowitz is on-board with global climate problems.

Indeed correct
Since Washington is known to be dominated by the "fourth branch" of government (basically the bureaucRAT).

To Sean
What it meant that neither Bush nor Wolferwitze are conservatives. Just because someone has a (R) after their name does not make them a conservative. In the Bush administration it seems that in most cases, other than the war, they are as liberal as the Dems.

Critical Bill
Gotcha! First you say,"but being polite every once in awhile never hurt anyone" then you
tell Vic (who posed an honest question) to
"take a hike" followed by telling Vic he doesn't have a "civil tongue in his head." Wow, that must be your way of being polite. Lynne probably doesn't bother to talk to you because she sees through your liberal two-faced rantings. I often wonder why people engage in back and forth posting with you....it would appear to do little good as I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. I also wonder when you "concede" points made during postings if it truly makes a difference to your way of thinking...somehow I find myself doubting it.

Stay on topic
This is not a chat room. Can you please focus your comments on the column?

That out of the way, good comments about this being a long running systematic problem. I too remember horror stories about the care my uncles received and the generally awful conditions of VA hospitals. This goes back at least 40 years that I know of. Not a partisan issue. All politicians can share the blame as they choose to divert our hard earned, and ever increasing, tax revenues toward their pork projects.

When Democrats, and that idiot Bill Maher, blame privatization I can only shake my head and laugh. It reminds me of the California energy crisis a few years back. They blamed "de-regulation" when it was nothing of the sort. It was price caps causing shortages-a classic liberal unintended consequence.

Their willful disregard of economics is at the center of virtually every financial issue at hand. They do us all a favor by shining a light on what we'll get if they have their way and inflict Hillary-care on us.

CB
Thanks for the info.

You're right, I'm no liberal. But I do acknowledge that both sides of the aisle could use some housecleaning. Forgetting for a moment about the US Attorneys, the Republicans have Duke Cunningham and the weirdo from Florida to be proud of, while The Dems have Cold Cash Jefferson and others in their corner. It's embarrassing as an American to see the shher number of scandals in Congress.

I usually vote Republican simply because they don't lie awake nights thinking of more idiotic, ineefective, expensive programs for the government to take upon itself, nor "finding" hidden passages of the Constitution that no one else notices.

I can be a little sharp-tongued myself, but usually that accomplishes nothing.


Not ashamed to be right
As you will doubtless have read when I mentioned that there's nothing wrong with being polite, I'm also not averse to sliging a bit of mud back when it comes my way - and Vic is incapable of much else. Hence telling him to take a hike. If that upsets you then you are probably a little too much of a weakling to be posting here... nope, Lynne doesn't talk to me any more because I referred to another lunatic poster as her love child once and she's been in the huff ever since. Nothing that is written on these posts has ever made me change my mind, but then again I also realise that nothing I have written here has ever changed anyone else's mind. That's life. And yes, I do sometimes like arguing for the sake of it - doesn't everyone once in a while? Must be the Scottish blood in me.

CB
Enjoyed "Braveheart", did ye lad?

Vic
So Bush and Wolfowitz are not conservatives in your mind. What are they because they sure as hell are not libs?

Are they the wingnut fringe of the party because they are not Reagan conservatives?

I have respect for real conservatives (I don't agree) so I like what you say. How did this group get in power?

Will you agree that this outfit is not fit to run this country. Will you agree that this Administration will go down as one of the worst ever.

Sean
I think Bush Jr has not been conservative enough. He has appeased Democrats in Congress. Reagan charmed the Congress he had, which was much more hostile, and got a lot of stuff done. He was tough when he needed to be; ask Mikhail Gorbachev. As a conservative, my knock on Bush is the way the government has grown under him. I didn't ask for that.

And for those of you
who don't like Salon - here is another good article about how the right went wrong in Time

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/How_right_went_wrong_0315.html

I think you can explain the right going wrong by the Coulterization of America analysis.

Yout thoughts

Nope Critical Bill,
don't think it's the Scottish blood in you. I can think of another name for it...but then that would not be "polite." It's ok, I will take being a "weakling" any day over sounding like you do on these boards. I will defer to describing that in more detail in the interest of being "polite."

AZ Phil
You would agree that Reagan would not have taken into Iraq.

How can you say that Bush has appeased the Dems in Congress. Dems had virtually no say over the last six years.

The repubs rubber stamped everything - Bush has only one veto - there was zero oversight which is why we are in the mess we are in

Why did the repubs in Congress neglect their oversight duties? That is an important question.

Your thoughts

Equation
Time+Salon+Newsweek+ABC+CBS=Liberal Media

Sean
I don't usually waste time on hypotheticals (what if Lincoln had lived? , etc) simply because it's moot.

Bush, if not appeased, has sucked up to the Dems in Congress. His reputation in Texas was his ability to work in a bipartisan fashion. After the controversial election results of 2000, the Dems had the long knives out from Jan 20, 2001 forward. He thought he could work WITH Congress, and he was wrong. They wouldn't even let benign choices for judges get voted on.

About the Reagan invasion of Iraq, I don't know what Ronnie would have done. I know he wouldn't have erred the way Clinton did (let the weapons inspectors in OR ELSE 500 times,) while giving nuclear reactors to NKorea. Assuming 9/11 happened as it did, Afghanistan would have been lucky if they weren't nuked with Reagan in the Oval Office.

So, i'm not sure what he would have done - he had the Iranians and later Kaddafi peeing down their own legs, so maybe he could have made Saddam back down, too.

Ann Coulter Column
I put Ann's name in the subject line because it seems many of you don't read the column you're commenting on. Some of your comments are ranting, juvenile, and belong in a different forum. Why don't some of you IM each other and argue away with your misinterpretated "facts" and name calling? Socialize somewhere else.

As for you, Ann, another great column. But I do so wish more of your readers could understood you instead of misconstruing what you say to bolster their own agendas.

Buck2, no one---including George Bush---has pulled funding for the VA. Where'd you get that ridiculous idea? Besides, funding levels are up to Congress, and the VA's funding has been increasing every year.

If you or others are concerned about the number of wounded soldiers, then stop bashing the war, George Bush, the generals, foreign policy re Iraq, and the individual soldiers. You only give aid and comfort to the enemy, embolden them, and endanger more lives with your rant. Find another way to voice displeasure.

FergusMacLennan: good post.

To all those having site difficulties: I've been hooked on TH for a long time, and I've never had a problem with the columns, articles, posts, or blogs. Perhaps, you have a problem with your browser. IE is not the best on the market. I've used Firefox for a long time, and I don't have those problems.

DangerousDave: I don't think you're so dangerous. You make good points about Congress.

Shells: I've been using the local VA for about six years now. I get all my medical care there, and I've never seen any of the problems others have noted. I'm please with my care, the place is clean, and the system responsive. One must guide the system and not sit in the waiting room until someone does things for you.

Any problems at the VA are no different from other hospitals I've been in---public or private. As to Walter Reed and any other problem areas, you should be looking at the hospital administration. That's where the problem is. Such "leaders" have to know how to administer what they have in an efficient manner, not rely on someone or something to bail them out. They must properly supervise the efforts and non-efforts of those employees responsible for action in all areas of the hospital.

Don't blame the national administration for those selected problems at selected places. Keep it local where it belongs.

Finally, I wish that posters, especially liberals, would use the TH spelling assistance, and proofread your posts. I know the difficulties. I do both and still find errors creeping in, but we should all do our part to keep the posts understandable.

Besides, when you spell correctly and use proper grammar, your purposeful misspellings and ungrammatical use of language have a much stronger satirical use.

No, I'm not a preacher or teacher, just an interested bystander. My eyes and brain like to be informed by posts, not disgusted or confused.

Cheers.

AZ Phil
You forgot to mention every other major media source except FOX and its affiliates. Is it fair to say that every major media source is liberal except FOX - will you agree and if not what are the other conservative media outlets.


Sean
What you say it true - I just left off the others.

Since the list is shorter, I'll list the conservative media sources: Most AM radio, Fox, Wall Street Journal. Drudge seems pretty evenhanded to me, and the rest lean left. There are different degrees of leaning left, though, and I would say CBS takes the prize on TV, and Newsweek in national periodicals.

AZ Phil
Good response

It is interesting that you equate 9-11 and Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Reagan would not have invaded Iraq in response to 9-11 - you know it and I know it - Reagan was no idiot.

W also screwed up in allowing N. Korea to develop the bomb - they never developed the bomb under Clinton and now Bush's "agreement" with N. Korea is essentially a return to Clinton's formulation.


Critical Bill
I'll vote for an increase in VA spending if we can cut funding to stupid pork social spending crap.
In fact I'll increase the entire military budget as well.
Perhaps to off set we can get the dems who are making big profits off shady land deals and contractor cick backs to give up their congressional and senatorial pay plus 25% of the ill gotten gains. :p

cirtical Bill
Berfore you accuse me of being unfair....I'd recommend the same for the Rebuplicans, but the get run out of congress and wind up in jail. Whereas Reid, Pelosi, Jefferson, Mulohan (WVa), and others get leadership and other plumb committie assignments.

Sean
Thanks, I think.

We did invade Afghanistan, too. I heard we wanted to bomb them back to the Stone Age but they were already there (HAHA).

I stand by my answer that I don't know what RWR would have done regarding Iraq. To say it was in response to 9/11 isn't totally true - one happened 18 full months after the other. Maybe Saddam would have been a little less daring with RWR in the Oval Office, who knows?

I think it's hard to prove the norks sat on a reactor from 1994-2001, and THEN suddenly started developing a bomb. I've been stationed in S. Korea twice in the last ten years. I can't disclose everything, but let's say the norks were never trustworthy, no matter who our president was. But they never had the nuclear piece of the puzzle till 1994.

BTW, you're right when you say Reagan was no idiot.

USMC and CB
What I'd vote for is an amendment, sort of like the 22nd, to limit terms of ALL Congressmen to 12 years. States have been reluctant to lead the way, knowing they would always have the rookies if their state has term limits and the others don't.

Because frankly, Congress is a disaster area on both sides of the aisle. I would say if we randomly selected senators/reps from a jury pool (and they'd have to be over 30 and 25, respectively), would the situation be any worse than it already is?

tnmccoy
Bravo to your post and it needed to be said. I read an article, I want to hear people's thoughts regarding the subject matter, and it always turns into a slug fest.

To comment to your post regarding my experience, mind you, it was a long time ago since I have set foot in a VA hospital. I guess in retrospect it is unfair for me to formulate my experiences when it's been about 10 years since I have stepped foot in one. But trust me when I say, during those 20 years of my life when I did need to visit frequently, they were in a sorry shape. Horrendous. We even took one of my uncles out of one facility to take care of him ourselves.

I'm glad you have had better experiences.

It's truly important for our soldiers to be treated with dignity and comfort when they need hospitalization. If there's anyone who deserves a 1st Class treatment, they above all do.

Reed and other hospitals may be in bad shape, but I still hold my ground that I do believe the MSM purposefully attacked Bush as the causal factor if its demise. I do believe these problems existed long before he took office.

Dialogue
I've noticed from my back and forth volleys with CB and Sean that people who disagree can be civil about it.

This is one reason (of many) I wouldn't vote for Hillary. As of the next election, we will have had a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 20 years. Democrats hate Bush because they don't think he really won in 2000, and are determined to smear him every chance they get. Plus, many feel Republicans unfairly attacked Clinton, while many Republicans viewed that as payback for nasty campaigning in 1992.

My point is, let's end the dynasty in 2008. Most Americans have more in common than they have different, but a Hillary presidency would accentuate the differences. I'd say Thompson or Giuliani would bring people together. Even Edwards could on the other side. But Hillary can't, and Gore can't because he's associated with the Clintons. It's time for fresh blood in Washington.

Civil
Speaking of which, I usually look forward to Kim's vapor trails, but I can honestly say i don't miss the sniping, bitter tone. It's kind of nice.

Lynne
Hey ! I like what you said about your distaste for Liberals...I share your angst as you already know.

But yes, if it came down to terrorists and our Liberal brothers, yes, I would stand strong with them and protect them against our attackers.

I guess what's frustrating to some of us conservatives is that although we have different ideals of what our government is supposed to uphold, it all boils down to one thing: Our right for all of us to exist as American citizens and not allow extremist to exterminate us all.

So love 'em or hate 'em, we're all in this together.

Sean
Wow how uninformed or willfully ignorant can one get? To state that the North Korea developed nukes under Bush's watch as if he was negligent is unbelievable and typical ibdrool propoganda. To say that they finally gone one built while he was president would be more accurate. The way you libdolts can ignore or fashion history to fit your arguments is phenomenal. In case you are not aware Sean - you don't just build a nuke overnight and you certainly cannot do so without previous experience. North Korea had no access to nuclear power whatsoever until Clinton et al decided the best way to keep them from going nuclear was to give them nuclear! Brilliant don't you think? And that my friend, along with allowing the sale of targeting technology to the Chicoms is Clinton's legacy. I am sure as a libtard you believe he is the Best President ever! - don't you?

OOPS
should have said "got one built".

Sean
One more thing: Since you were obviously disgusted that Bush "allowed" Kim Jong Mentally Il to build his nuke, will you therefore support Bush's ordering of an attack on Iran in order to stop the development of theirs?

Civil Servant Experience
Years ago as a 1LT in the USAF, I worked in a primarily civilian organization (5000 c to 100 m ratio). One civil servant in particular stands out. He had 25+ years in and every few years the managers took turns having to have him in their dept. Clyde (GS-6) often spent the whole day riding around on the base shuttle. When (in my youthfull fooliness) I asked his current GS-12 boss why he didn't do anything with Clyde, I was told, "He is a fully successful Civil Servant!".

Also, the worst trouble I ever got in was when I brought a program in under budget ($400,000) and turned the money back in as "unneeded". My Colonel (military reported only to military) made sure I got transferred back to a combat unit prior to his retirement to protect me from revenge seeking GS's.

she's not even trying
With this column it appears that she is not even trying to hide the fact that her readers are idiots. Bosses are not responsible for the state of things under their command because the union rules are too tough? Hee hee. A five year old wouldn't take that argument serious.

Sean
"Reagan would not have invaded Iraq in response to 9-11 - you know it and I know it - Reagan was no idiot."

Reagan very likely woudn't have left Saddam sitting in Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War in the first place. If he had, he damn sure wouldn't have put up with a dozen years of armistice violations and shooting at aircraft patroling the No-Fly Zones - his non-response to the Beirut bombing notwithstanding. There's nothing like a direct attack to sharpen (some people's) thinking...

tnmccoy
Yes, while the author of the column is Ann Coulter, oftentimes posters do go off on tangents, which is not necessarily a bad thing. What I do not appreciate is people who go on and on (to say nothing of being disrespectful and or name calling regarding other posters) as if they get off on reading/hearing themselves talk. These people just like to throw the bait and stir up trouble. They are not here to be informed, educated or enlightened; they are here to push their agenda (usually liberal)in an attempt to pull people down to their level.

Your point about those who profess to support the soldiers and then tear down Bush, the military, Walter Reed, VA, etc. is definitely right on.

Lynne
"Truly and embarrassment"? Well I'm glad to see that you are at least reading my posts again...

vic...
Thanks for the links to factcheck. I managed to pull those but saw that you beat me to the punch.

Lynne...
When do you plan to be down by the VV Memorial tomorrow morning? Who all is getting together for the day's activities?

A Union-Protected Civil Servant Speaks!
Basically, she's right in a nutshell. Guv'ment employees are slow to do what they are supposed to do, whether they are vets are not. Believe me, we have at my agency MANY military veterans and while the vast majority of them are excellent employees, there are quite a few of them that are the laziest, most arrogant, and whiniest people you'd ever want to come into contact with. Some of these people have been fired TWICE and brought back only through benefit of their being MSPB-protected (Merit Service Protection Board, for those unfamiliar with the vernacular).

However, to be fair, red tape and bureaucracy is the bigger problem with the VA/W. Reed and this is NOT something that just came along since Bush was in office. It even pre-dates Helen Thomas (ooooh, that was so mean-spirited!).

I've stayed in "nice" hotels that looked worse than Walter Reed. My primary disappointment - aside from aesthetics - lies with the patient after-care. I hope that by shining a light on the problem that that will enable more vets to get the treatment they need.

All Vets Hospitals
They try and make this latest Walter Reed fiasco sound like it just started happening under this administration, well its been going on for over twenty years, if anyone out there has ever had a relative go to a veterans hospital they would know, its just getting the attention now because of so many coming back in time of war.
So this should be a wake up call to all the people who want a goverment run health system, can you imagain the mess that would be.
I remember when the veterans were promised free health care,and that changed over the years too!

Come on Ann!
For anything to happen in this United Soviets States of America we live in, would require the existence of an opposition party.

But as you say in your piece; Bush and the Republicans are just as scared of government workers as Democrats are dependent on them.

Gone are the days when president Reagan summarily fired the whole sorry bunch; i. e. traffic controlers.

47% of government workers are Unionized and if the auto industry, the steel industry and public education are any indicators we know what to expect of the future of the USS of A.

But the Rats Are Privatized
In 2001 an audit found that maintenance service at Walter Reed would be more costly if privatized. The Bush administration reversed the findings of the audit (which The Data Quality Act permits them to do---even a federal science agency's findings can be altered, reversed, or restated by Bush's people) and they awarded a $120 million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, a Halliburton subsidiary already known for overcharging the Pentagon for food and fuel in Iraq and for not being able to deliver ice to Katrina victims.

Coulter appears to engage her mouth before engaging her brain. A little research would have informed her that federal employees are no longer in charge of maintenance at Walter Reed, and they haven't been for about seven years now. How long is the life of a rat?

Five Years Plus and Counting
I should have included in my previous post that the IAP Worldwide Services contract was for five years, so presumably it has been renewed since then in spite of IAP's horrendous showing in Iraq and New Orleans. Privatization is not a panacea.

Outsourced - Profits first
"Coulter appears to engage her mouth before engaging her brain. A little research would have informed her that federal employees are no longer in charge of maintenance at Walter Reed, and they haven't been for about seven years now. How long is the life of a rat?"

Not only was the work outsourced to a private firm, they reduced the number of staffers from 350 government workers to 100 private workers. This is the same private firm that came under fire for not being able to deliver ice to Katrina victims. If there is criticism to be levied, it should be at the Pentagon procurement officers. But of course they all plan on going to work for Halliburton and Blackwater when their tours are up.

And of course last but not least, this is not the first time nor the last that Ann didn't get her facts straight, but then conservatives don't believe in facts unless they make them up.

Conservative Media
"Since the list is shorter, I'll list the conservative media sources: Most AM radio, Fox, Wall Street Journal. Drudge seems pretty evenhanded to me, and the rest lean left. There are different degrees of leaning left, though, and I would say CBS takes the prize on TV, and Newsweek in national periodicals."

You left off the Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Weekly Standard, New York Post, Forbes, Investors Business Daily, National Review. I also think Drudge is very conservative in leanings.

Conservative Media (Part II)
U.S. News and World Report and Business Week are also conservative. Time Magazine has weekly columns by Bill Kristol (Mr. Neocon himself). I don't disagree that most media are liberal, but the conservatives have a strong voice in the media also. And let's face it, the media does not have near the power of corporate America which is very conservative.

Reed
Move out of DC....place facility in area where staff is working class..not welfare class with a job...spent great deal of time in DC...titles, pay checks, no work ethic..you owe me ethic...move the entire group to another location...minimum 100 miles from DC...

The Democrat Secret Weapon
Weapons programs are given names to honor former heroes such as the "Abrams" tank, the "Bradley" fighting vehicle. Some weapons systems are not always successful i.e. the SGT "York" anti-aircraft system.

The Democrats have a secret weapon they named the "Civil Servant", like the SGT York, "you can't fire it and it don't work".

In addition to the janitors who don't do their jobs, who do you think is the bureaucrats specializing in the red tape at Walter Reed?

Why it is the "Civil Servant", the shining jewel of union inspired incompetence, and inefficiency.




Neoconservatism’s deadly influence

This is the best article I have read to describe what the Neoconservative agenda is about. Do you think they have destroyed the conservative movement? Do you think this is why NEOCON President Bush has expanded governement more than any other in our history?

FREELIBERTY-Neoconservatism’s most prominent adherent wants it to be linked to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal socialism and, because of its rejection of “isolationism,” to be further identified as a champion of meddling in the affairs of other nations. The opposite of isolationism, of course, is interventionism, a tactic favored by all neoconservatives. Earlier, in 1983, Kristol claimed that “a conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective.” Old-line conservatives would justly label the phrase “conservative welfare state” a classic oxymoron. By 1993, in a piece he authored for the Wall Street Journal, the Godfather lauded Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and Medicaid, even a cash allowance for the children of unwed mothers. Virtually any socialist program can count on support from the neoconservative camp.

As for interventionist meddling, neoconservative Charles Krauthammer candidly presented the movement’s attitude in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol’s journal, The National Interest. Boldly calling for the integration of the United States, Europe, and Japan, he yearned for a “super-sovereign” state that would be “economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world.” Not satisfied with such a novel creation, he further urged a “new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.” And he added: “This is not as outrageous as it sounds.” Maybe not to a neoconservative, but a real conservative and especially a constitutionalist wouldn’t hesitate for a moment in labeling such ideas “outrageous.”

READ MORE http://www.controlcongress.com


She is our jewel!
I'll take 12 of Ann Coulter over moore and franken any day of the week.

Neocons reward their friends - again!
"IAP is owned by a New York hedge fund whose board is chaired by former Treasury Secretary John Snow, and it is led by former executives of Kellogg, Brown and Root, the subsidiary spun off by Texas-based Halliburton Inc., the oil services firm once run by Vice President Dick Cheney." from AP Business.

This is getting sickening. Yet another instance of Bush Administration awarding bids to friends of theirs who are incompetent. And this is called "supporting the troops". I think we should have a bumper sticker called "Supporting Your Friends".
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.