Debate on the Mosque At Ground Zero
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Showing posts with label Partisan Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Partisan Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, May 30, 2009
No Change: Obama Appoints Big Donors as Ambassadors
Newsmax.com
Friday, May 29, 2009 8:20 AM
WASHINGTON – Despite his promises of change, President Barack Obama has kept tradition by naming top donors to plum ambassador posts, drawing fire from career US diplomats and causing dismay among some US allies.
Obama has been criticized for naming fund raisers with no diplomatic experience - and who together drummed up well over a million dollars for his record-shattering campaign - to be ambassadors to Britain, France and Japan.
"It's an 18th-century practice we are continuing which no other major democratic country does," said Ronald Neumann, a veteran ambassador and head of the American Academy of Diplomacy, a lobby of former senior diplomats. "It's not 'change you can believe in,' but it's not terribly surprising," said Neumann, referring to Obama's campaign slogan.
Obama named Louis Susman, a former Citigroup banker in Chicago once dubbed the "vacuum cleaner" for his prowess sucking up money, as ambassador to London. Obama also tapped two major California fund raisers - naming Charles Rivkin, the former producer of "The Muppets" children show, to Paris and Silicon Valley lawyer John Roos to Tokyo.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday defended the picks, noting that Obama also
appointed respected figures such as former congressman Timothy Roemer as ambassador to India.
"It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public
servants ... who haven't come through the ranks of civil service," Gibbs said.
British newspapers described Obama's appointment to London as "cronyism." Some dailies had
speculated hopefully that the US president would pick one of his more glamorous friends - Oprah Winfrey.
While US ambassador residences in London and Paris have long been retreats for presidents' wealthy friends, Tokyo has been used to heavy hitters including former vice president Walter Mondale, former Senate majority leaders Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker and ex-House speaker Tom Foley. Many Japanese are nervous that the United States will ignore its longstanding Asian ally as it builds ties with a rapidly growing China.
While Tokyo publicly welcomed Roos' appointment, one Japanese magazine worried that Obama was "Japan-passing" - opposed to US "Japan-bashing" during the 1980s trade wars.
Tokyo-based analyst Robert Dujarric said Japanese worry that Roos is "lightweight" compared with Obama's pick for Beijing, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman - a Mandarin speaker who some eye as a future president himself.
"It's a symptom of Japan's anxiety over its future, its ties with America and being overshadowed by China," said Dujarric, director of Temple University's Institute of Contemporary Japanese Studies.
"Hence the trauma of a senior politician going to Beijing compared with a guy in Tokyo who no one has ever heard of with no political or Asian expertise -- although to be fair, I assume as a Silicon Valley player he knows a thing or two about Japanese high-tech," Dujarric said.
But Dujarric said Japan put too much emphasis on the US ambassador, who has far less influence than US cabinet members who meet regularly with Japanese counterparts through the Group of Seven and other forums.
Obama worked early to show his commitment to the Japan relationship by inviting Prime Minister Taro Aso as his first foreign guest at the White House. Morton Abramowitz, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation who has served as ambassador to Thailand and Turkey, said that while it was deplorable to give positions based on money, some Obama fund raisers could make solid diplomats.
"Despite the rhetoric, this administration is no different than previous administrations, expect it looks like their appointments might be better," Abramowitz said. "Diplomacy has to be much more creative and much more dynamic these days as we're not the big power we once were. It's important to have people as good as we can get," he said.
© 2009 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 29, 2009 8:20 AM
WASHINGTON – Despite his promises of change, President Barack Obama has kept tradition by naming top donors to plum ambassador posts, drawing fire from career US diplomats and causing dismay among some US allies.
Obama has been criticized for naming fund raisers with no diplomatic experience - and who together drummed up well over a million dollars for his record-shattering campaign - to be ambassadors to Britain, France and Japan.
"It's an 18th-century practice we are continuing which no other major democratic country does," said Ronald Neumann, a veteran ambassador and head of the American Academy of Diplomacy, a lobby of former senior diplomats. "It's not 'change you can believe in,' but it's not terribly surprising," said Neumann, referring to Obama's campaign slogan.
Obama named Louis Susman, a former Citigroup banker in Chicago once dubbed the "vacuum cleaner" for his prowess sucking up money, as ambassador to London. Obama also tapped two major California fund raisers - naming Charles Rivkin, the former producer of "The Muppets" children show, to Paris and Silicon Valley lawyer John Roos to Tokyo.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday defended the picks, noting that Obama also
appointed respected figures such as former congressman Timothy Roemer as ambassador to India.
"It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public
servants ... who haven't come through the ranks of civil service," Gibbs said.
British newspapers described Obama's appointment to London as "cronyism." Some dailies had
speculated hopefully that the US president would pick one of his more glamorous friends - Oprah Winfrey.
While US ambassador residences in London and Paris have long been retreats for presidents' wealthy friends, Tokyo has been used to heavy hitters including former vice president Walter Mondale, former Senate majority leaders Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker and ex-House speaker Tom Foley. Many Japanese are nervous that the United States will ignore its longstanding Asian ally as it builds ties with a rapidly growing China.
While Tokyo publicly welcomed Roos' appointment, one Japanese magazine worried that Obama was "Japan-passing" - opposed to US "Japan-bashing" during the 1980s trade wars.
Tokyo-based analyst Robert Dujarric said Japanese worry that Roos is "lightweight" compared with Obama's pick for Beijing, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman - a Mandarin speaker who some eye as a future president himself.
"It's a symptom of Japan's anxiety over its future, its ties with America and being overshadowed by China," said Dujarric, director of Temple University's Institute of Contemporary Japanese Studies.
"Hence the trauma of a senior politician going to Beijing compared with a guy in Tokyo who no one has ever heard of with no political or Asian expertise -- although to be fair, I assume as a Silicon Valley player he knows a thing or two about Japanese high-tech," Dujarric said.
But Dujarric said Japan put too much emphasis on the US ambassador, who has far less influence than US cabinet members who meet regularly with Japanese counterparts through the Group of Seven and other forums.
Obama worked early to show his commitment to the Japan relationship by inviting Prime Minister Taro Aso as his first foreign guest at the White House. Morton Abramowitz, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation who has served as ambassador to Thailand and Turkey, said that while it was deplorable to give positions based on money, some Obama fund raisers could make solid diplomats.
"Despite the rhetoric, this administration is no different than previous administrations, expect it looks like their appointments might be better," Abramowitz said. "Diplomacy has to be much more creative and much more dynamic these days as we're not the big power we once were. It's important to have people as good as we can get," he said.
© 2009 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
Republican Donors Hit by Chrysler Closings
Newsmax.com
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:04 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Increasing numbers of Chrysler dealers are disputing the bankrupt automaker’s claim that it selected dealerships for closure on purely economic grounds, and they have filed a suit against the automaker in U.S. bankruptcy court.
"My business is being stolen from me under the guise of the bankruptcy laws [and] given to another dealer down the street," Jim Anderer, owner of Island Jeep in Lindenhurst, N.Y., told Reuters.
Like many of the 789 Chrysler dealerships slated for closure, Anderer claims his retail outlet was
profitable. Many of the closed dealers were also major donors to Republican candidates and political action committees, a review of campaign finance data from the Federal Election Commission shows.
This has led to accusations, which Rush Limbaugh aired last week, that President Obama's auto task force has been playing political favorites, first by forcing Chrysler into bankruptcy, and then by targeting dealerships for closure that funded the president’s political enemies.
An attorney representing some of the dealers, Leonard Bellavia, came close to supporting those
allegations himself after deposing Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday. “It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the president's automotive task force."
Among the most prominent Republicans who stands to lose his business as a result of the Chrysler bankruptcy is Vernon G. Buchanan, owner of Venice Dodge in Venice, Fla.
Buchanan gave $2,300 to John McCain in last year’s election, and has given a whopping $5.3 million to Republicans since the 2000 election cycle, according to FEC records Newsmax examined. He spent nearly $4.5 million of that amount to get himself elected to Congress in 2006 in the 13th District of Florida, where incumbent Republican Katherine Harris resigned that year to run unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate.
Buchanan won the 2006 election with just 50 percent of the vote but came back in 2008 and won a more comfortable victory with 56 percent of the vote, and voted against Obama’s budget this year. But he has crossed aisles occasionally, notably voting in favor of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush vetoed in 2007.
Other prominent Republican donors whose successful Chrysler dealerships will be shut down include Russ Darrow, owner of Darrow Chrysler Jeep of Menomenee Falls, Wis. Darrow spent $2.7 million of his own money to finance an unsuccessful challenge to incumbent Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin in 2004.
Many dealers, however, gave to both political parties; some, such as Alan Spitzer, owner of Spitzer Dodge in Elyria, Ohio, gave only to Democrats.
Blogger Doug Ross (Directorblue.blogspot.com) has begun posting lists of Republican donors whose Chrysler dealerships have been targeted for closure. The most complete list of Republican victims of the Chrysler bankruptcy was compiled by an anonymous blogger at scribd.com/doc/15760333/Chrysler-Report, which identified 165 Republican donors out of 595 examined, or just over 27.7 percent.
One blogger, who claimed to work for one of the soon-to-be closed dealerships, reported on the blog Cars.com that his dealership was “in the top 125 out of the 3,500 dealerships nationwide . . . yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area. Our new vehicle inventory alone is well over $4 million.”
In addition, “Chrysler is already 'shopping' for dealers to take over the open 'points' (another name for franchise) left by closed dealership,” he added. “This is so much more than 'just business.' This is about control and power by our present administration in Washington.”
Auto-dealers as an industry tend to give more to Republican causes than to Democrats, according to an analysis done by Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that compiles FEC data and operates the Open Secrets Web site.
During the 2008 election cycle, the center found that auto dealers and their associated political action committees made a total of $9 million in campaign contributions, giving by a 3-to-1 margin to Republicans. The automobile industry as a whole made $18.5 million in donations in 2008, also breaking roughly 3-to-1 in favor of Republican candidates and causes. But it ranked way behind lawyers, civil servants, hedge fund managers, teacher’s unions, and the entertainment industry, which were large Democrat donors.
One company that stands to benefit in a major way from the Chrysler restructuring is called RLJMcLarty-Landers, a start-up owned by Democratic Party insiders that operates six Chrysler dealerships throughout the South. Co-owners Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, and Mack McLarty, chief of staff to president Bill Clinton, provided capital and political clout to the partnership, which they formed in September 2007.
Johnson is a major donor to Democrat party causes but sharply criticized Obama during the primaries for his admitted drug use as a young man. He later apologized to Obama for the personal attack.
According to another blog, RLJ-McCarty-Landers will retain all of its six dealerships, while “eight competing dealerships [will be] totally eliminated from three of their markets.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:04 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Increasing numbers of Chrysler dealers are disputing the bankrupt automaker’s claim that it selected dealerships for closure on purely economic grounds, and they have filed a suit against the automaker in U.S. bankruptcy court.
"My business is being stolen from me under the guise of the bankruptcy laws [and] given to another dealer down the street," Jim Anderer, owner of Island Jeep in Lindenhurst, N.Y., told Reuters.
Like many of the 789 Chrysler dealerships slated for closure, Anderer claims his retail outlet was
profitable. Many of the closed dealers were also major donors to Republican candidates and political action committees, a review of campaign finance data from the Federal Election Commission shows.
This has led to accusations, which Rush Limbaugh aired last week, that President Obama's auto task force has been playing political favorites, first by forcing Chrysler into bankruptcy, and then by targeting dealerships for closure that funded the president’s political enemies.
An attorney representing some of the dealers, Leonard Bellavia, came close to supporting those
allegations himself after deposing Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday. “It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the president's automotive task force."
Among the most prominent Republicans who stands to lose his business as a result of the Chrysler bankruptcy is Vernon G. Buchanan, owner of Venice Dodge in Venice, Fla.
Buchanan gave $2,300 to John McCain in last year’s election, and has given a whopping $5.3 million to Republicans since the 2000 election cycle, according to FEC records Newsmax examined. He spent nearly $4.5 million of that amount to get himself elected to Congress in 2006 in the 13th District of Florida, where incumbent Republican Katherine Harris resigned that year to run unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate.
Buchanan won the 2006 election with just 50 percent of the vote but came back in 2008 and won a more comfortable victory with 56 percent of the vote, and voted against Obama’s budget this year. But he has crossed aisles occasionally, notably voting in favor of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush vetoed in 2007.
Other prominent Republican donors whose successful Chrysler dealerships will be shut down include Russ Darrow, owner of Darrow Chrysler Jeep of Menomenee Falls, Wis. Darrow spent $2.7 million of his own money to finance an unsuccessful challenge to incumbent Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin in 2004.
Many dealers, however, gave to both political parties; some, such as Alan Spitzer, owner of Spitzer Dodge in Elyria, Ohio, gave only to Democrats.
Blogger Doug Ross (Directorblue.blogspot.com) has begun posting lists of Republican donors whose Chrysler dealerships have been targeted for closure. The most complete list of Republican victims of the Chrysler bankruptcy was compiled by an anonymous blogger at scribd.com/doc/15760333/Chrysler-Report, which identified 165 Republican donors out of 595 examined, or just over 27.7 percent.
One blogger, who claimed to work for one of the soon-to-be closed dealerships, reported on the blog Cars.com that his dealership was “in the top 125 out of the 3,500 dealerships nationwide . . . yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area. Our new vehicle inventory alone is well over $4 million.”
In addition, “Chrysler is already 'shopping' for dealers to take over the open 'points' (another name for franchise) left by closed dealership,” he added. “This is so much more than 'just business.' This is about control and power by our present administration in Washington.”
Auto-dealers as an industry tend to give more to Republican causes than to Democrats, according to an analysis done by Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that compiles FEC data and operates the Open Secrets Web site.
During the 2008 election cycle, the center found that auto dealers and their associated political action committees made a total of $9 million in campaign contributions, giving by a 3-to-1 margin to Republicans. The automobile industry as a whole made $18.5 million in donations in 2008, also breaking roughly 3-to-1 in favor of Republican candidates and causes. But it ranked way behind lawyers, civil servants, hedge fund managers, teacher’s unions, and the entertainment industry, which were large Democrat donors.
One company that stands to benefit in a major way from the Chrysler restructuring is called RLJMcLarty-Landers, a start-up owned by Democratic Party insiders that operates six Chrysler dealerships throughout the South. Co-owners Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, and Mack McLarty, chief of staff to president Bill Clinton, provided capital and political clout to the partnership, which they formed in September 2007.
Johnson is a major donor to Democrat party causes but sharply criticized Obama during the primaries for his admitted drug use as a young man. He later apologized to Obama for the personal attack.
According to another blog, RLJ-McCarty-Landers will retain all of its six dealerships, while “eight competing dealerships [will be] totally eliminated from three of their markets.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Madame Traitor: An Arab-American's Perspective on Pelosi in Damascus
From: American Congress for Truth
Madame Traitor: An Arab-American's Perspective on Pelosi in Damascus
By Emilio Karim Dabul:
Nancy Pelosi is to world diplomacy what Michael Jordan was to baseball: completely forgettable and unnecessary. But unlike Michael's slightly amusing foray into the Babe's world, there's nothing funny about Pelosi in Damascus. The terrorists and their supporters, who are always looking for weak links and signs that the US does not have the will or backbone to win the war we're fighting with them, just found a great ally in Madame Speaker.
Among the older members of my extended Syrian family, there was a general attitude that kindness equaled weakness. It wasn't that they didn't believe in charity, but that it must be parceled out carefully, because those of ill intent can be quick to take advantage of those they perceive to be gullible and soft. This is what Nancy Pelosi either doesn't understand, or doesn't care about: she's being used by the very people who want to destroy us in another round of window dressing, subterfuge, and deceit. I suspect that Pelosi knows this, but is more intent on trying to undermine the President than in looking at how she could best support national security.
Let's look at the record. Syria has admitted that it has financially supported Hezbollah and Hamas, but says that it doesn't supply them with arms. What's the difference? What do you think these groups buy with the money? How many Israeli and Lebanese men, women and children have been slaughtered because of Syrian backing of these groups? And who do you think Syria supports across the border in Iraq: our troops or the terrorists some blithely refer to as "insurgents"? Without the direct involvement of Syria and Iran, the current terrorism movement in Iraq would have considerably less groundswell.
Pelosi might respond that she's aware of all that, but that she's simply taking James Baker's advice to talk with your enemies. Well, here's the problem: Baker's wrong. Talking to the Syrians has never accomplished anything. They correctly read the signs a long time ago that there would be no real consequences for continuing to support Arab and Islamic terrorist groups. And Pelosi has proven them right again: bend us and we will break.
This needs to stop. Syria and Iran need to know in a very real way that if they continue to support terrorism, they will experience the full wrath of the United States. And there cannot be any negotiating when it comes to this. Moammar Gadhafi -remember that boogeyman?-backed off when we bombed his palace in Libya. Gadhafi's two-year-old adopted daughter died in that raid, which was a terrible tragedy, particularly since he was the one with blood on his hands, not her. Still, Gadhafi crawled back into his hole, and retreated even further when we invaded Iraq, making a public show of acquiescence to the US. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid.
Syria and Iran need to be given fair warning to cease and desist all support of terrorist activities, prove they're doing so, and if they don't, be held to account.
Damascus and Tehran will continue to taunt and undermine us, and the UK, until they know they can't. Assad would be a lot less likely to cut checks for terrorists if he knew it could cost him his job or his life. And the same is true of the little guy in the leisure suit over in Iran. This is what they both understand and respect: force, not treaties and tea.
And Pelosi would probably be adverse to hang out with these guys if she knew F-18s might be approaching. Charging her with treason in the meantime would be appropriate. If the Speaker of the House during the Vietnam War had broken bread with Cambodian leaders, the public would have demanded his resignation and the most severe punishment possible for such a crime. And yet when Nancy Pelosi sits down with our enemies' collaborators, she's given a pass, even praised by those who cheer on any action that goes against the President. Al Jazerra is probably her biggest fan right now, next to the New York Times.
The problem is she's not just hurting the President, she's betraying our troops, and everyone around the world at risk to terrorist attacks, which is most of us.
We should not let her get away with it. We need to hold Pelosi responsible for her actions, as well as Syria and Iran. The three of them have more than proven their status as enemies of the United States.
***
Emilio Dabul is a Contributing Editor for American Congress for Truth.com. He is a Syrian-American of Muslim heritage and a Middle East commentator.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Truth About Walter Reed Army Medical Center
From an Army Chaplain at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
I have had enough and am going to give my perspective on the news about Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Please understand that I am speaking for myself and I am responsible for my thoughts alone. The news media and politicians are making it sound like Walter Reed is a terrible place and the staff here has been abusing our brave wounded soldiers; what a bunch of bull!
I am completing my 24th year of service in the Army next month so you decide for yourself if I have the experience to write about this topic. I have been the senior clinical chaplain at Walter Reed for four years and will leave to go back to the infantry this summer. I supervise the chaplain staff inside Walter Reed that cares for the 200 inpatients, the 650+ daily outpatients from the war who come to us for medical care, the 4000+ staff, and over 3000 soldiers and their families that come for clinical appointments daily. Walter Reed has cared for over 5500 wounded from the war. I cannot count the number of sick and non-battle injured that have come through over that timeframe. The staff at this facility has done an incredible job at the largest US military medical center with the worst injured of the war. We have cared for over 400 amputees and their families. I am privileged to serve the wounded, their families, and our staff.
When the news about building 18 broke I was on leave. I was in shock when the news broke. We in the chaplains office in Walter Reed, as well as the majority of people at Walter Reed, did not know anyone was in building 18. I didn't even know we had a building 18. How can that happen? Walter Reed is over 100 acres of 66 buildings on two installations. Building 18 is not on the installation of Walter Reed and was believed to be closed years ago by our department. The fact that some leaders in the medical brigade that is in charge of the outpatients put soldiers in there is terrible. That is why the company commander, first sergeant, and a group of platoon leaders and platoon sergeants were relieved immediately. They failed their soldiers and the Army. The commanding general was later relieved (more about this) and his sergeant major has been told to move on--if he gets to. The brigade sergeant major was relieved and more relief's are sure to come and need to. As any leader knows, if you do not take care of soldiers, lie, and then try to cover it up, you are not worthy of the commission you hold and should be sent packing. I have no issue, and am actually proud, that they did relieve the leaders they found who knew of the terrible conditions some of our outpatients were enduring. The media is making it sound like these conditions are rampant at Walter Reed and nothing could be further from the truth. We need improvements and will now get them. I hate it that it took this to make it happen.
The Army and the media made MG Weightman, our CG, out to be the problem and fired him. This was a great injustice. He was only here for six months, is responsible for military medical care in the 20 Northeast states, wears four "hats" of responsibilities, and relies on his subordinate leaders to know what is happening in their areas of responsibilities. He has a colonel that runs the hospital (my hospital commander), a colonel that runs the medical brigade (where the outpatient wounded are assigned and supposedly cared for), and a colonel that is responsible to run the garrison and installation. What people don't know is that he was making many changes as he became aware of them and had requested money to fix other places on the installation. The Army did not come through until four months after he asked for the money, remember that he was here only six months, which was only days before they relieved him. His leaders responsible for outpatient care did not tell him about conditions in building 18. He has been an incredible leader who really cares about the wounded, their families, and our staff. I cannot say the same about a former commander, who was my first commander here at Walter Reed, and definitely knew about many problems and is in the position to fix them and he did not. MG Weightman also should not be held responsible for the military's unjust and inefficient medical board system and the problems in the VA system. We lost a great leader and passionate man who showed he had the guts to make changes and was doing so when he was made the scapegoat for others.
What I am furious about is that the media is making it sound like all of Walter Reed is like building 18. Nothing could be further from the truth. No system is perfect but the medical staff provides great care in this hospital. What needs to be addressed, and finally will, is the bureaucratic garbage that all soldiers are put through going into medical boards and medical retirements. Congress is finally giving the money that people have asked for at Walter Reed for years to fix places on the installations and address shortcomings. What they don't want you to know is Congress caused many problems by the BRAC process saying they were closing Walter Reed. We cannot keep nor attract all the quality people we need at Walter Reed when they know this place will close in several years and they are not promised a job at the new hospital. Then they did this thing call A76 where they fired many of the workers here for a company of contractors, IAP, to get a contract to provide care outside the hospital proper. The company, which is responsible for maintenance, only hired half the number of people as there were originally assigned to maintenance areas to save money. Walter Reed leadership fought the A76 and BRAC process for years but lost. Congress instituted the BRAC and A76 process; not the leadership of Walter Reed.
What I wish everyone would also hear is that for every horror story we are now hearing about in the media that truly needs to be addressed, you are not hearing about the hundreds of other wounded and injured soldiers who tell a story of great care they received. You are not hearing about the incredibly high morale of our troops and the fact that most of them want to go back, be with their teammates, and finish the job properly. You should be very proud of the wounded troopers we have at Walter Reed. They make me so proud to be in the Army and I will fight to get their story out.
I want you to hear the whole story because our wounded, their families, our Army, and the nation need to know that many in the media and select politicians have an agenda. Forget agendas and make the changes that have been needed for years to fix problems in every military hospital and the VA system. The poor leaders will be identified and sent packing and good riddance to them. I wish the same could be said for the politicians and media personalities who are also responsible but now want it to look like they are very concerned. Where have they been for the last four years? I am ashamed of what they all did and the pain it has caused many to think that everyone is like that. Please know that you are not hearing the whole story. Please know that there are thousands of dedicated soldiers and civilian medical staff caring for your soldiers and their families. When I leave here I will end up deploying. When soldiers in my division have to go to Walter Reed from the battlefield, I know they will get great medical care. I pray that you know the same thing. God bless all our troops and their families wherever they may be. God bless you all,
+Chaplain John L. Kallerson
Senior Chaplain Clinician
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
I have had enough and am going to give my perspective on the news about Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Please understand that I am speaking for myself and I am responsible for my thoughts alone. The news media and politicians are making it sound like Walter Reed is a terrible place and the staff here has been abusing our brave wounded soldiers; what a bunch of bull!
I am completing my 24th year of service in the Army next month so you decide for yourself if I have the experience to write about this topic. I have been the senior clinical chaplain at Walter Reed for four years and will leave to go back to the infantry this summer. I supervise the chaplain staff inside Walter Reed that cares for the 200 inpatients, the 650+ daily outpatients from the war who come to us for medical care, the 4000+ staff, and over 3000 soldiers and their families that come for clinical appointments daily. Walter Reed has cared for over 5500 wounded from the war. I cannot count the number of sick and non-battle injured that have come through over that timeframe. The staff at this facility has done an incredible job at the largest US military medical center with the worst injured of the war. We have cared for over 400 amputees and their families. I am privileged to serve the wounded, their families, and our staff.
When the news about building 18 broke I was on leave. I was in shock when the news broke. We in the chaplains office in Walter Reed, as well as the majority of people at Walter Reed, did not know anyone was in building 18. I didn't even know we had a building 18. How can that happen? Walter Reed is over 100 acres of 66 buildings on two installations. Building 18 is not on the installation of Walter Reed and was believed to be closed years ago by our department. The fact that some leaders in the medical brigade that is in charge of the outpatients put soldiers in there is terrible. That is why the company commander, first sergeant, and a group of platoon leaders and platoon sergeants were relieved immediately. They failed their soldiers and the Army. The commanding general was later relieved (more about this) and his sergeant major has been told to move on--if he gets to. The brigade sergeant major was relieved and more relief's are sure to come and need to. As any leader knows, if you do not take care of soldiers, lie, and then try to cover it up, you are not worthy of the commission you hold and should be sent packing. I have no issue, and am actually proud, that they did relieve the leaders they found who knew of the terrible conditions some of our outpatients were enduring. The media is making it sound like these conditions are rampant at Walter Reed and nothing could be further from the truth. We need improvements and will now get them. I hate it that it took this to make it happen.
The Army and the media made MG Weightman, our CG, out to be the problem and fired him. This was a great injustice. He was only here for six months, is responsible for military medical care in the 20 Northeast states, wears four "hats" of responsibilities, and relies on his subordinate leaders to know what is happening in their areas of responsibilities. He has a colonel that runs the hospital (my hospital commander), a colonel that runs the medical brigade (where the outpatient wounded are assigned and supposedly cared for), and a colonel that is responsible to run the garrison and installation. What people don't know is that he was making many changes as he became aware of them and had requested money to fix other places on the installation. The Army did not come through until four months after he asked for the money, remember that he was here only six months, which was only days before they relieved him. His leaders responsible for outpatient care did not tell him about conditions in building 18. He has been an incredible leader who really cares about the wounded, their families, and our staff. I cannot say the same about a former commander, who was my first commander here at Walter Reed, and definitely knew about many problems and is in the position to fix them and he did not. MG Weightman also should not be held responsible for the military's unjust and inefficient medical board system and the problems in the VA system. We lost a great leader and passionate man who showed he had the guts to make changes and was doing so when he was made the scapegoat for others.
What I am furious about is that the media is making it sound like all of Walter Reed is like building 18. Nothing could be further from the truth. No system is perfect but the medical staff provides great care in this hospital. What needs to be addressed, and finally will, is the bureaucratic garbage that all soldiers are put through going into medical boards and medical retirements. Congress is finally giving the money that people have asked for at Walter Reed for years to fix places on the installations and address shortcomings. What they don't want you to know is Congress caused many problems by the BRAC process saying they were closing Walter Reed. We cannot keep nor attract all the quality people we need at Walter Reed when they know this place will close in several years and they are not promised a job at the new hospital. Then they did this thing call A76 where they fired many of the workers here for a company of contractors, IAP, to get a contract to provide care outside the hospital proper. The company, which is responsible for maintenance, only hired half the number of people as there were originally assigned to maintenance areas to save money. Walter Reed leadership fought the A76 and BRAC process for years but lost. Congress instituted the BRAC and A76 process; not the leadership of Walter Reed.
What I wish everyone would also hear is that for every horror story we are now hearing about in the media that truly needs to be addressed, you are not hearing about the hundreds of other wounded and injured soldiers who tell a story of great care they received. You are not hearing about the incredibly high morale of our troops and the fact that most of them want to go back, be with their teammates, and finish the job properly. You should be very proud of the wounded troopers we have at Walter Reed. They make me so proud to be in the Army and I will fight to get their story out.
I want you to hear the whole story because our wounded, their families, our Army, and the nation need to know that many in the media and select politicians have an agenda. Forget agendas and make the changes that have been needed for years to fix problems in every military hospital and the VA system. The poor leaders will be identified and sent packing and good riddance to them. I wish the same could be said for the politicians and media personalities who are also responsible but now want it to look like they are very concerned. Where have they been for the last four years? I am ashamed of what they all did and the pain it has caused many to think that everyone is like that. Please know that you are not hearing the whole story. Please know that there are thousands of dedicated soldiers and civilian medical staff caring for your soldiers and their families. When I leave here I will end up deploying. When soldiers in my division have to go to Walter Reed from the battlefield, I know they will get great medical care. I pray that you know the same thing. God bless all our troops and their families wherever they may be. God bless you all,
+Chaplain John L. Kallerson
Senior Chaplain Clinician
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)