Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, June 2, 2014

Something About Eric Shinseki

General Shinseki
I do not wish to malign Eric Shinseki.

He served with honor on the battlefield, sustained severe wounds, and eventually attained the rank of four star general.

However, I think that something needs to be brought to light.

From this source (All other sources were scrubbed between 7:00 A.M., May 30, 2014, and 7:00 A.M., May 31, 2014!):
View PostSharkhaywood, on 29 May 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

The guy has been on the job for 5 years now so it's not like he is brand new to the position. I browsed the guy's Wiki page and he is a very decorated soldier. However, he doesn't have any medical background. It would seem to me that a person with some kind of medical background would be best suited to run the VA. It did also show the following:

Forgotten by many is the fact that much of the problems with infrastructure deterioration and neglect at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as the lack of funding for repairs, occurred initially during Shinseki's tenure as the 34th Army Chief of Staff.

Whistleblowers to the problems were summarily squashed and funding for improvements were routinely and regularly denied. For instance, the problems associated with Building 18 were not new to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center community. As early as 1999 the extensive problems with Building 18 were identified to senior level leadership, and funding for renovations and improvements were denied. Prior to its role housing wounded warriors, Building 18 had long served as the barracks of WRAMC Student Company. Between 1999 and 2001, under the Command of then Captain Michael D. Dake, the Student Company leadership identified the deplorable conditions in and around Building 18 to two Medical Center Brigade Commanders (COL Terry D. Carroll, and COL Larry S. Bolton respectively). By 2002, the requests for funding to improve conditions in and around Building 18 had made it to the attention of Major General Kevin C. Kiley. Kiley, who toured the facility as part of his Commander's in-brief after arriving in June, personally inspected the facility and spoke to the Soldiers and the Leadership. He then also denied funding for improvements. By 2004, renovation of Building 18 had been anticipated in connection with the enhanced use lease of Building 40, but since the post was slated for closure under BRAC in 2005, the anticipated in-kind services by the Building 40 developer did not materialize.

Funding for repairs at Walter Reed never did materialize during Shinseki's tenure as Army Chief of Staff; despite the fact Shinseki's directive to develop and wear the new Black Beret for all service members resulted in such enormous waste that, in one case with a cancelled manufacturing contract with a Chinese national firm, as much as $37.9 million U.S. dollars was lost to contracting errors, unlawful foreign sourcing and import law violations.
I am not suggesting that Eric Shinseki is a corrupt man or a corrupt leader.

What I am suggesting is this: Shinseki was the wrong man to appoint as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  He already had a history as a poor manager of allocated funds.

At the beginning of this blog post, I alluded to the scrubbing of information. My statement was one of personal observation. I saw the information with my own eyes! To be clear: on May 30, I read the information cited above about the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; match the 1999 date of that scandal with the timeline of Shinseki's career.

The evening of May 30, when I was watching the news, not a single television news outlet (not CNN, not MSNBC, not Fox) mentioned the apparent correlation between the scandal and Shinseki's position as Chief of Staff of the Army. I was stunned that nobody referred to the 1999 scandal at Walter Reed. When I arose on Saturday morning and searched the web for the information, I realized what had happened.

The information was scrubbed. Why?

18 comments:

  1. Simple. The entire SYSTEM is corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It would seem to me that a person with some kind of medical background would be best suited to run the VA."

    Yes, and serving under the auspices of a board consisting of representatives of advocate groups such as the American Legion and the VFW; open to consideration of assertions by 'whistle blowers'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A friend of mine recently received a communication from the head of a West Coast Japanese-American civic group urging everyone to gather around Eric Shinseki in the face of his troubles. Not because Shinseki is unfairly maligned ... but because he is Japanese-American. I wonder why these “Americans” were not upset because of the effects of Shinseki’s incompetence on veterans of Japanese descent. I wonder why they scrambled to make this a racial or ethnic issue. Maybe this is what card-carrying communists do, or self-centered assholes who think that their particular niche in society is more important anyone else’s ... or maybe they’ve learned important lessons about how to hold America hostage for their own selfish purposes. Shinseki shouldn’t just be fired; he should be charged with criminal malfeasance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The racial angle is a tad much. However, it appears he was merely not competent. If its true that there was multiple sets of books for bonuses the perpetrators need to be arrested and it is not only the VA that does this.

      Delete
    2. Merely not competent?

      The guy takes over an agency that has been a mess for decades and rather than ask why it couldn't be improved we just say he's incompetent and wait for the next scandal.

      Do you support Bernie Sanders' (S- Vermont) bill to give the next head real power to fire and resolve this crap?

      Delete
    3. Sir, aside from his career, I, for one, support appointments based on proven credentials. Otherwise, I do not care for "appointments of color". Being "one", I still cannot understand why "they" vote Democrat...

      Delete
  5. The logical opinion is that yes, the person in charge should have some training, experience, in the field he is put in charge of. But that is logic. When has this administration done anything logical. Look at the head of any department in Washington. It is who you know, your politics, etc., not your training and experience.

    My hubby was a doctor in they Navy years ago and he can tell you horror stories. The way clinics were set up, etc. There were arbitrary rules that didn't make any sense. He tried to make suggestions to move patients along, to SEE MORE PATIENTS, but he was basically told to shut up. You can't buck the system in the military. They would book the patients and the doctors would sit around playing cards, talking, whatever in between. They could have booked 4 times as many appointments and seen many more sick people in a day, but nope, that would never do, because the system said you see only X number in a day...

    Debbie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. p.s. My hubby did not stay in the Navy long, could not stand to practice that kind of medicine. Started his own practice, which was good, but the government increasingly intruded on the freedom to treat patients even in private practice.

      Delete
  6. We are in the golden age of government incompetence.

    3000 people died on 11 September, 2001 and Bush didn't fire one person. He gave the FBI director a medal.

    This is what we get from a corrupt government that is answerable to no one but itself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only reason Shinseki was appointed to head the VA is because he was the general who famously disagreed with President Bush about the surge in Iraq. That made him a hero to Obama and the left. It didn't matter that he lacked the competence to handle a task like the VA. It's all politics all the time with the Obama comrades!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is the tip of the iceberg with two sets of books for managerial bonuses.

      Delete
  8. This is only an example of what is heading our way with our healthcare.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aside from the obvious -- that Shinseki should never have been appointed Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the first place -- what most disturbs me is that the information I found one day had been scrubbed by the next day.

    Who did that?

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can guess who... But as to why, it comes down to greed, corruption and protecting the Progressive movement. Sadly, it is our veterans in pain that suffer... just like the civilians did in WWII on account of failed leadership.

      Delete
  10. Who did that?

    Why?

    If you knew, they'd have to scrub you...

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective