Army’s treatment of returning soldiers
Re: “Army chiefs admit errors,” March 6 news story.
Among other things, support for our troops requires that we treat them for their physical and emotional needs once they come home. This administration has few individuals with military service, and has shown no real understanding of the military’s needs, and even worse, of the individual soldier’s long-term needs. For an administration that makes such a show of flag-waving, the neglect at Walter Reed Army Hospital may reveal its true colors.
Walter Reed required serious additional maintenance, and it was incumbent on the commander of that hospital to bring those deficiencies and solutions to the attention of his superiors. At whatever level we find that those requests were either ignored or pooh-poohed, that individual should be fired and censured. Not “allowed to resign”; not promoted into the Pentagon; not allowed to retire without consequence. Reports are that at least two consecutive commanders were aware of these problems, and probably others higher in the chain of command as well.
We also need to understand that not all of Walter Reed is to blame. So far, we know only that the outpatient facilities were sadly and grossly unsatisfactory. So let’s not spread blame to those individuals (for example, medical staff in the in-patient hospital) by association, and in so doing do another disservice to those who appear to be serving the needs of our returning soldiers very admirably.
Will Burt, Lakewood
…
As a retired military veteran, I’m pleased to see that the quality of medical care for veterans is going to improve and become less bureaucratic in its process.
But let’s be realistic. The whole nation is also suffering from costly, inadequate and uneven quality of medical care.
So let’s correct it all. Currently, Congress and the administration are behaving like a bunch of first-graders chasing a soccer ball labeled “crisis du jour” around a field.
Instead of chasing the spotlight, I challenge our elected officials to take the lead, and not just follow what the media has “discovered” for them.
David Durst, Louisville
Considering a world without borders
In the fall of 1958, one of my high school teachers made the statement, “There should be no borders.” At the time, I understood this to be a long-term goal and one that could eventually be met. Her statement came to mind a few years later when I was traveling through Europe on business and had to ask the driver to stop at the German border to have my passport stamped. Otherwise, we would have passed through the border as if it didn’t exist and I would have nothing official to show I was in Germany legally.
I still believe having no borders is a worthy goal. As a start, the U.S. should not be building a 700-mile fence between us and Mexico. The emphasis ought to be on individuals having a standard, high-tech form of international identification for traveling between all countries and for use in obtaining employment and health care if necessary. Maybe someday this just might happen.
Michael H. Kennedy, Centennial
The politics of division
Like many people, I am disgusted by Ann Coulter’s blatantly offensive comments about John Edwards. It is obvious that Ms. Coulter, like many of her radical colleagues who seem more intent on slandering the character of their opponents than on discussing reasonable solutions to real problems, will do anything to draw attention to herself and her dubious “cause.” Similarly, the regret expressed by many left-wing bloggers that Vice President Cheney survived a nearby assault in Afghanistan demonstrates how polarized national politics has become.
It is my sincere hope that in 2008, moderate American voters – and most of us are moderates in our thinking – will elect candidates who are willing to work together through bipartisan initiatives that will move the nation forward. Ironically, John Edwards appears to be just such a candidate.
Hopefully, the lesson learned from Coulter’s name-calling, Rush Limbaugh’s divisiveness, Bill O’Reilly’s bullying, and left-wing bloggers’ hatred is that the politics of division has not served us well. It is time to consider the good of the country over the shortcomings, real or imagined, of our opponents.
Marty Grims, Lakewood
To send a letter
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-954-1502
Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
