T Nation

Dems and Walter Reed

"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."

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Many on here attack teacher unions; how about the same zeal for the Civil Service?

Find a source that hasn’t been proven to be a frequent liar and stretcher of the truth, and you’ll get better discussion.

If this is true, people who are not doing their jobs should be fired. Period.

There. Happy? I doubt you’ll find anyone who disagrees with that.

The problems at Walter Reed are a result of Bush administration mismanagement and their goal of privatizing the federal government.

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2611574

The Walter Reed scandal exposes the lie that private contractors always do a job cheaper and more efficiently than the federal government.

And the company (IAP) that was contracted to run Walter Reed is politically connected on the Right… another example of Bush cronyism. Connections matter more than qualification or performance.

You’d thing the Ann Coulter Republicans would be getting tired of the non-stop Bush ethical scandals, but apparently not. I bet they’ll find a way to try to blame Walter Reed on Bill Clinton. It’s always somebody else’s fault (they’re just the victim, sob sob).

Ann Coulter is an idiot. She writes at a high-school level. I guess that explains her popularity among her fans… ahem not too bright ahem

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The problems at Walter Reed are a result of Bush administration mismanagement and their goal of privatizing the federal government.

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2611574

The Walter Reed scandal exposes the lie that private contractors always do a job cheaper and more efficiently than the federal government.

And the company (IAP) that was contracted to run Walter Reed is politically connected on the Right… another example of Bush cronyism. Connections matter more than qualification or performance.

You’d thing the Ann Coulter Republicans would be getting tired of the non-stop Bush ethical scandals, but apparently not. I bet they’ll find a way to try to blame Walter Reed on Bill Clinton. It’s always somebody else’s fault (they’re just the victim, sob sob).

Ann Coulter is an idiot. She writes at a high-school level. I guess that explains her popularity among her fans… ahem not too bright ahem[/quote]

I gotta say, theres a girl in my grade who has an almost identical writing style to Coulter. It’s actually really freaky. Heh.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The problems at Walter Reed are a result of Bush administration mismanagement and their goal of privatizing the federal government.

[/quote]
To be fair, the privatization of government services have been going on for quite a while (at least since the 80’s) and isn’t solely the Bush admin’s fault.

What DoD should take the hit on is their system of checks and balances. Remember, we already fired Rummy so the blame can only roll so far up hill. The people in charge always take the biggest hit to criticism because culpability always falls on them.

A good leader always knows what is going on in his or her unit and it seems the biggest defense for those in “control” is to play the “I don’t know card”. Well, I ask, why doesn’t anyone know? Their only job is to know what is going on. Not knowing was the only failure because had someone known it wouldn’t have happened. And if they did know why didn’t someone do something about it?

The Dems are just mad because they could not give the contract to one of their cronies.

The General who was in charge of Walter Reed has been around long enough to know the limitations of what government employees can and can’t do. He should, if he was paying attention, know how to get around those problems and take care of the soldiers and Marines under his care. I’m a Captain (six paygrades less than a Lieutenant General) and I know how to get things done in the civilian employee system.
The General was negligent, his subordinates were negligent, and wounded troops suffered for it. There should be no mercy or consideration for him or his rank, being held personally responsible for the performance of your organization is the burden of command.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"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."

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Many on here attack teacher unions; how about the same zeal for the Civil Service?

[/quote]

Someone in here attacks all unions, but somehow manages to make an exception for teacher unions.

And that’s the thing we always see with Republicans. They’re very harsh for others, but they themselves are special and the rules don’t apply to them.

We see the same thing here. Hey, the general can hardly be expected to stomp on the cockroaches himself.

Hey, Bush can hardly be expected to find the missing wmd himself.

What happened to accountabiliy? What happened to “the buck stops here”?

[quote]BH6 wrote:
The General who was in charge of Walter Reed has been around long enough to know the limitations of what government employees can and can’t do. He should, if he was paying attention, know how to get around those problems and take care of the soldiers and Marines under his care. I’m a Captain (six paygrades less than a Lieutenant General) and I know how to get things done in the civilian employee system.
The General was negligent, his subordinates were negligent, and wounded troops suffered for it. There should be no mercy or consideration for him or his rank, being held personally responsible for the performance of your organization is the burden of command. [/quote]

Good post. This is not a Dem/Repub things. This is incompetence and negligence.