American Legion to help at Walter ReedThe Army has reached an unusual agreement with the nation’s largest veterans’ organization to help ease discharges for wounded service members at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. A memorandum of understanding between the American Legion and the Army, signed today, will put two paid Legion staffers in the administrative offices at the hospital to help process veterans’ disability claims, set up appointments at veterans’ hospitals in a wounded member’s hometown and other services, said Peter Gayton, the group’s director for veterans’ affairs and rehabilitation. The agreement is an outgrowth of the continuing controversy over the plight of outpatients at Walter Reed who have faced a variety of what military officials now agree have been unnecessary hurdles, including problems in getting out of the Army and receiving continuing care at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility The Legion already has a program it calls Heroes to Hometown that has a Legion member meet a wounded veteran who is returning home to help with immediate needs, including helping with mortgage payments and other pressing needs. “We are going to fit the two programs together into one aimed at making things easier,” Gayton said. The big difference is that the Heroes to Hometown program had depended on volunteers while the new agreement has two paid staff members working at the Army’s flagship hospital with the intention of speeding the out-processing of wounded service members. The Legion is happy to help, he said, although he conceded it would have been better if the government would have helped wounded combat veterans without needing a veterans’ group. The Legion “wants to be part of the solution,” he said. “We have the ability to help, and that is what we are going to do.” This is not the first time the military has turned to a major veterans’ group for help. Disabled American Veterans has paid staff helping with the physical disability evaluation process at Walter Reed. In a statement, Legion national commander Paul A. Morin said, “The American Legion’s presence at Walter Reed will assist service members cut through the red tape that now hinders a truly seamless transition between DoD and VA.” “Our goal is to streamline the process to reduce or eliminate the need for housing recovering service members in facilities not intended for long term accommodation,” Morin said. “We as a nation have an obligation to not only give our wounded warriors the finest health care, but to ensure their recovery takes place in the best accommodations we can give them.” Morin added. “Since 1919 The American Legion has battled to secure and protect the earned benefits of America’s veterans and today’s action strengthens that steadfast commitment.” The Legion is not the only veterans’ group concerned about Walter Reed. The commander-in-chief of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Garry Kurpius, said, “What occurred was disgraceful, but it was an aberration that should not be allowed to taint the dedicated service of thousands of military and civilian employees who provide outstanding care to our wounded at Walter Reed and elsewhere around the country.” Kurpius said the situation at Walter reed was “entirely preventable if only those in positions to effect change had listened to the troops and acted upon their concerns and suggestions.” “We must now have confidence that the investigations and hearings and corrective actions will take place rapidly so that the nation can refocus its attention back on taking care of troops,” he said. “Those serving our nation in uniform today — and their families at home — must know that the VFW will not tolerate any half measures when it comes to the care and treatment of our wounded warriors.” President Cites 'Encouraging Signs' From New Iraq PlanDemocrats Say He Is Raising False Hopes By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 7, 2007 President Bush said yesterday that there are "encouraging signs" that his new strategy in Iraq is working and bluntly challenged a divided Congress to provide funding for the war with no restrictions on commanders. The president's appraisal, his first detailed assessment of the war since unveiling his new plan for Iraq on Jan. 10, was immediately attacked by congressional Democrats as a new attempt to raise false hopes about a deteriorating situation in Iraq. Advisers said Bush's comments were based on briefings from commanders on the ground and were designed to counter the argument from many Democrats on Capitol Hill that his Iraq strategy is destined to fail. Bush said the Iraqi government has completed the deployment of three additional Iraqi army brigades to Baghdad and has lifted restrictions on U.S. forces going into certain neighborhoods in the capital. He said the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has also started delivering on promises to meet political benchmarks, such as a new law to distribute oil revenues throughout the country. "It is too early to judge the success of this operation. . . . This strategy is going to take time," Bush told hundreds of veterans gathered at the American Legion conference in Washington. "Yet even at this early hour, there are some encouraging signs." Bush's comments seemed calculated to exploit divisions among Democrats who were swept into power by opposition to the war but have not agreed how to oppose it effectively. Congressional leaders are struggling to reconcile lawmakers who want to cut off funding and quickly end U.S. involvement in Iraq with others wary of interfering with the war. Appearing before a friendly audience, the president said that some lawmakers think the mission in Iraq can succeed without the additional 21,500 troops he has ordered to the theater. Other lawmakers, Bush added, "seem to believe that we can have it all: that we can fight al-Qaeda, pursue national reconciliation, initiate aggressive diplomacy and deter Iran's ambitions in Iraq -- all while withdrawing from Baghdad and reducing our troop levels. That sounds good in theory, but doing so at this moment would undermine everything our troops have worked for." Congressional Democrats gave little credence to Bush's assessment of the situation in Iraq or of their legislative plans. Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), whose combat tour in Iraq propelled him into politics, was in Baghdad last week and said yesterday that he saw little change. Iraqis "are still sitting on the sidelines," he said, watching idly as their countrymen thwart progress toward reconciliation and tear down the electrical grid, while they wait for U.S. troops and money to intervene. "At some point, you have raise the BS flag," the gruff former Army paratrooper said. "Every single Iraqi home has an AK-47 with 50 rounds of ammunition. It's the will of the people that's the problem." Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), who returned from Iraq Monday night, said U.S. commanders were cautiously optimistic as they described efforts to protect marketplaces and allow life in Baghdad to regain a semblance of normalcy. The Baghdad morgue's nightly body count had dropped to 10 from 100, but the officers, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, were not ready to draw conclusions, she said. "They were really downplaying expectations" and for good reason, Boyda said. A recent bombing in a Baghdad book market filled the morgue again and set back the commanders' efforts to allow residents some measure of security. The president had offered relatively little public assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq since his Jan. 10 speech outlining a new strategy including the additional troops and a greater emphasis on Iraqi forces taking the lead in securing Baghdad. The White House has been clearly cognizant of the damage done to its credibility by its repeated promises of improvements being undone by rising sectarian violence in Iraq. Indeed, the president's remarks came on a day when at least 118 Shiite pilgrims were killed in bombings and shootings across central Iraq -- attacks immediately claimed by Sunni insurgents. White House aides have said that a full assessment of the new strategy will not be possible until summer. But in recent days, senior officials have sounded a more guardedly optimistic tone in private settings, and Bush went public with it yesterday -- though some in his own party cringed at even the modest horn-tooting. "We don't have the credibility to make that observation," said prominent GOP lobbyist Ed Rogers. "For the president to make that observation instantly makes people want to challenge that and wave the bloody shirt." Some experts who follow Iraq closely said some of Bush's statements will surely be challenged. For example, Bush said it is a positive sign that the Iraqi government recently budgeted $10 billion for economic reconstruction and capital investment. But budgeting that money has not been the problem -- it has been the ability of the Iraqi government to spend it, according to many experts. "I am really cautious on this," said one senior U.S. official involved with Iraq policy, referring to signs of improved governance by the Maliki government. "This is something to keep an eye on as an emerging trend -- I don't think its more than that." Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who has traveled frequently to Iraq, said he was encouraged by the presence of the new U.S. commander, Petraeus, and new ambassador, Ryan Crocker. "My head tells me we are in a very dangerous situation -- and in a general sense it is moving in the wrong direction," he said. "My heart tells me that Petraeus and Crocker may be able to talk 100 key Shia and Sunni leaders into moving back from the precipice." While Bush spoke yesterday, House Democrats closed in on an agreement over supplemental war-funding legislation that they hope would force the president to live up to his promises and begin bringing troops home next year. The compromise would restrict the deployment of troops to only those deemed properly rested, trained and equipped. However, the president could waive those restrictions, provided he offers a justification for why they cannot be met. The centerpiece of the compromise is implementation of the same benchmarks that Bush laid out in January to measure the Iraqi government's progress on stabilizing the country. If Maliki cannot meet those benchmarks, Bush would have to submit a plan to Congress next year to start withdrawing troops from combat areas, beginning in mid-2008 and concluding no later than Dec. 31 of that year. But Democratic divisions remain stark, especially among the most liberal members of the Out of Iraq Caucus. The group's co-chairman, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), said a deadline of Dec. 31, 2008, is unacceptably distant and promised that "a very respectable group of members" would not vote to fund the war unless Democratic leaders take a more aggressive stand to bring troops home much sooner. The American Legion -- Still Serving America |
