Commitment to support the troops

Discussion in 'Politics' started by james_bond_3rd, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. Q The administration's mantra for a long time has been "support the troops." What is the reaction, then, when you read this series of stories in The Washington Post about troops coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan and being treated so poorly, apparently, based on this long investigation? What's the President's reaction?

    MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. First, it's not a mantra. I would really choose words carefully. It's a commitment to support the troops. And the President, as you know, has visited the wounded many times at Walter Reed and we are concerned about it. And the people who --

    Q Were you aware?

    MR. SNOW: We are aware now, yes. And I would refer you to the Department of Defense, which I know is taking a very close look at it, too.

    Look, the men and women who have gone and fought for our country over there, they deserve the best care.

    Q So why has that not been guaranteed, then?

    MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- you know, when you find a problem, you deal with it.

    Q So you're saying the President learned about this from The Washington Post?

    MR. SNOW: I don't know exactly where he learned it, but I can tell you that we believe that they deserve better. And, again, Ed, this is something where I'd suggest you give DoD a call, because I know they've taken a good, hard look at it.

    Q Tony, can I follow on that? As Bob Dole might ask, where's the outrage?

    MR. SNOW: There's plenty of outrage.

    Q Is there?

    MR. SNOW: Yes.

    Q So the President responded how when he learned about this? What, specifically -- did he order something to be done?

    MR. SNOW: What I'm suggesting -- there's a reason I'm suggesting -- DoD is the proper place in which we'll be taking care of these issues. And I would refer you to them for comment. But this is something that's going to have to be an action item.

    Q But is there any evidence that it was even looked at before the paper printed its two stories?

    MR. SNOW: Yes.

    Q Then tell us about that evidence.

    MR. SNOW: That's why -- again, I would refer you, Bill, to the Department of the Army, which runs the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This is the place where if you want to get --

    Q That's just an easy way for you not to have to talk about it.

    MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a way of pointing to the proper authorities, which is what you would want.

    Q The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

    MR. SNOW: No. David asked where the outrage -- of course there's outrage that men and women who have been fighting have not received the outpatient care -- if you read the stories, there are many who are happy with it, some who are unhappy, and it's important that we show our commitment to the people who have served. I don't know what more you want me to do.


    Q Is the system working?

    MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what -- is the system working? Yes. Is it working perfectly? No.

    Q It's good enough?

    MR. SNOW: No, I said, it's not good enough. I just told you it's not working perfectly. But there are also thousands of people who have been through the system who have been cared for. But it is important that we maintain a commitment to following up or providing the treatment that these men and women deserve.

    Q Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?

    MR. SNOW: No.

    Q You responded to me a moment ago that the administration was aware of this before the articles appeared in the paper.

    MR. SNOW: That is my understanding. But, again, this is something that's an action item over at the Department of Defense and, in particular, the Department of the Army. I am not fully briefed on the activities or who knew what, when. And I suggest --

    Q Was the President aware of it? Was the White House aware of it?

    MR. SNOW: I am not certain --

    Q May I follow on --

    Q What is the President's --

    MR. SNOW: -- when we first became aware of it.* Now the President certainly has been aware of the conditions in the wards where he has visited, and visited regularly, and we also have people from Walter Reed regularly over to the White House as guests, sometimes in fairly large numbers. So as I said, the President is committed -- committed to these people, committed to men and women who have served. We need to make sure that whatever problems there are get fixed. I couldn't be any stronger or plainer about it.

    Q Has he given any new orders?

    MR. SNOW: No. At this point, Helen, I think the most important thing -- the way this would work is the Department of Army has its own investigation about what's going on at Walter Reed. They will be taking action. The President certainly wants to make sure that, as I said before, whatever problems there are get fixed.

    Q On Walter Reed, a lot of the veterans, the medical community, the doctors, the neighbors who have worked at Walter Reed are very upset about this move, pending move to Bethesda. In light of everything that's happening, does the administration still support uprooting --

    MR. SNOW: The Department of Defense has made the decision to consolidate the treatment facilities at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center.

    Q Is there any chance of a second look? Some of the facilities at Walter Reed are brand new.

    MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm just going to refer you to that. This is -- all of a sudden people are trying to open up different avenues of inquiry. The fact is that those changes have, in fact, been decided upon by the Department of Defense. I am not aware of any decisions to change.

    Q To clarify, were these -- any actions that the Pentagon has taken, these action items, were they done on its own, or did they do this in response to some order from here?

    MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not aware that anybody has -- look, when you have a problem like this, the imperative is to fix it. I'm not sure that you have to issue orders; there are people there who know if they've got a problem they need to fix it. So I don't think that -- I will try to find out for you, but I'm not aware that the President has cut any special orders. But I will try to get for you additional information.

    Q I think what we're --

    MR. SNOW: I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to get a tick-tock on what did he learn and how did he respond and who did he call.

    Q Yes, we're trying to determine if someone here built a fire under someone over there to do something.

    MR. SNOW: You know, that's assuming that people there are callous about the fate of the people who are serving.

    Q It isn't --

    MR. SNOW: No, I think it is. When you say "light a fire," it's as if, you know, you find out that there's a problem and you don't move quickly to try to correct it. My sense is that there's plenty of fire for trying to get it right. But this is why I'm telling you if you want a more direct answer about this, you do need to talk to the people at the Department of the Army --

    Q But, Tony, when you read --

    MR. SNOW: -- who are at the ground level involvement here.

    Q -- an account that says a commanding general, quotes a commanding general as saying, well, gee, we ordered repairs done, but they weren't done -- you'd think they would have known this hadn't been accomplished.

    MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's why -- you've just made my point, which is you need to get back to them, and I will also get back for you with a tick-tock about what's going on at this end.

    Q It's not just -- you're describing kind of a cold, detached bureaucratic process. We all know how this works. Something like this, this kind of story gets people's attention. You are now --

    MR. SNOW: Well --

    Q Wait a minute. You're now in the PR business, you know if something like this happens it's at odds with the commitments you make; the Commander-in-Chief might well stand up at a meeting and say, darn it, let's get to the bottom of this now and let's get answers. And this happened over the weekend, and you're saying you think the White House knew, but you're not sure; you're not sure when the President knew or if he said something to somebody. It just seems like you should have those answers.

    MR. SNOW: Okay, but you also -- fine, I'll try to get them for you. But when you talk about cold detachment, I don't think saying that if it needs --

    Q You're calling it an "action item"?

    MR. SNOW: Well, yes, because what I'm telling you is that it is something that falls under the providence of the Department of the Army. Therefore, if you want the detailed answers about who knew what, when and how it's been handled, you do need to ask them, because they're going to have the information, David.

    I can tell you that the President feels passionately about them, and you should have no doubt about it -- you've been at enough events where when he looks these people in the eye there is a commitment, a strong, profound emotional commitment to the people who serve this country. And it is one where the President is committed to doing right by the men and women who serve. There should be no doubt about that.
  2. Supporting the troops means to Bush that you look at them in the eyes and tell them that you support them.

    It also means that when there is a problem, you leave it to the bureaucrats (the cause of the problem to begin with) to fix it.

    With the exception of invading Iraq, Bush has followed the advice of doing as little as possible to the letter.

    BTW the exchange can be found at the whitehouse site:
  3. While I'm no fan of the Bush Admistration, or this silly ass war, it's more than a little disingenuous to lay this issue solely at his feet. Veterans have received second class healthcare for decades. The condition of VA hospitals and the service veterans receive there has been sub-standard for years and years. "Support the troops" has always been little more than lip service, and every god damn politician in this country is guilty of that.
  4. Such Bush apologists always make me angry. First you distort historical facts. Second by "spreading the blame" you try to diminish the hypocrisy of the Bush administration. Bush and his cronies have repeatedly attacked others for not supporting the troops. Implicitly they have claimed the political platform that they are the real supporters of the troops. Third, the point is not the problem itself. The problem has been exposed and hopefully someone will fix it. The point is that Snow showed a callous and indifferent attitude towards the problem, reflecting the fact that Bush doesn't really give a damn.
  5. Such "Blame Bush for everything" people make me angry. You like to pretend that the world was perfect before Bush. It wasn't! You like to pretend that before Bush all politicians and their cronies were honest johns. They weren't! This gang in the Oval office is no more, or less full of shit than their predecessors. YOU need to quit being the apologist for all those that came before Bush, and quit pretending like the world was fucking shangrila prior to 2000. It wasn't!!
  6. Did I say the world was perfect before Bush? No.
    Did I say all politicians were honest before Bush? No.
    Did Clinton ever accuse his opponents of not supporting the troops (even when the Republicans were calling for "immediate and total withdrawal")? No.

    If you want to argue against my points, then argue against my points. Don't argue against some irrelevant fake points that I didn't make.

    Look, if you claim the moral high ground, then you'd better have the morality to back it up. If you don't have that kind of morality, then stop whining.
  7. I made my point...your bias is obvious. I blame them all, dem and repub. Both parties are guilty as sin and you just can't get past your blame bush mentality to see that simple truth.
  8. dems...repubs; same shills manipulated by a bunch of rich foreigners that have been illegally installed at the center to divide americans and provide u with the illusion of choice. get rid of those aresholes committed to the destruction of american sovereignty and u'll be allright, u wont have to argue about troops and war cuz there'll be no conflicts no more.
  9. Nonsense. Bias is not always wrong. In the disguise of even-handedness, you're providing the guilty party an escape. Blaming everyone is the same as blaming no one.

    There is nothing wrong with blaming Bush on this. We're not talking about economy which Bush has no control over.
  10. Where did I say Bush has no accountability? I said it was disingenuous to lay it all on him as if this is something new. He is to blame, and so are a whole host of others. Vets have received horrible health care forever. Every god damn one of these politicians take their photo op with some cripple at a VA hospital and then they're on their way. They all wave the fucking flag, give a big rah rah speech, gather up the campaign donations and good-bye suckers. Blaming everyone is not the same as blaming no one. They are all to blame...Bush and his entire administration, Kerry, Murtha, Webb, McCain...... where the fuck have these guys been all these years? Paying lip service!
    And what does corporate america do? Nothing! Instead of shutting down plants GM should be making combat ready vehicles. But no......they'll spend a zillion dollars on bullshit superbowl commercials, but they can't afford to do the right thing. Bullshit! And the fucking news whores. What do we see? Who did Anna fuck last and Brittney shaving her fucking head. Then we dumb it down real good at night watching American Idol. Where's the real news? All the while some poor motherfucker is getting his ass shot off and for what? To come home and be treated like a second class citizen. Right about now I'd like to take every politician in this country and shove em' off a god damn cliff.
    #10     Feb 21, 2007