Even with regard to the resignation of Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs has been met with mixed reactions, but we'll try to cut through some of the clutter and that's where we'll start. As Paul Rieckhoff said, there needs to be a complete house cleaning and if you agree with that statement then Gen. Shinseki needed to step down. The consolation for Mr. Rieckhoff, IAVA Founder and Executive Director and all of us really, is that the general didn't step down too soon. The anger at the administration and the embarrassment brought to the American people reached a necessary boiling point to the degree that hopefully, now, we'll see some real reform to the V.A.
Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) used the word 'shocking' to describe what was going on at veterans' hospitals. It's the correct word, but frankly we're not shocked. If you've ever listened to a single interview that Mr. Rieckhoff has ever given, but only believed 10 percent of what he said, you'd still know that there is definitely something wrong at the VA in terms of soldiers getting care.
We were disappointed in Rep. Kinzinger's answer that he didn't necessarily feel more funding for the VA is necessary. He and his Republican colleagues are making a miscalculation there as is the Obama Administration. The VA most certainly needs additional funding and instead of increasing the defense budget as Congressman Paul Ryan has outlined, put that increase toward the VA - the war that has come home. Also, the Obama Administration has miscalculated on its budget projections based on savings from winding down two wars. Though the sums are not equivalent, the VA's budget right now is about $160 billion, but it should be about $250 billion at least for the next five years to put everything on track - that's where much of that savings should go, and the first step was for a weak general manager to step down.
Speaking of general managers, is this 5 for 1 trade a good one? Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in his interview characterized it as a prisoner of war exchange. However, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were never classified as such, 'enemy combatants' instead, which is one reason for so much international outrage. And in asking the question the way we did, we seem callous to the fact that an American soldier has been in captivity for 5 years, but that's not the case nor the point. If these people that we freed are as dangerous as government personnel say - high risk - then how do we know these top-tier Taliban won't cause harm to more Americans. We don't because, as we know from sports, the effect of a trade isn't always felt immediately. NBC National Security Correspondent Michael Leiter called it an exclamation point to the winding down of the war in Afghanistan. We wouldn't go that far, but it is a clear indicator, no doubt.
Mr. Gregory had a lot of questions for Secretary about the investigation as to what happened; how Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was captured in the first place. Representative Linzinger phrased in terms of abandoning a post, but that's speculation at this point. Mr. Hagel prudently didn't take the bait in trying to answer any of those questions, instead focusing on the man's health and safe return.
So even not knowing how it's going to pan out, do you make that trade? If you're the United States, yes. We get our man back and rest assured that, though politically it doesn't seem smart, those 5 men will be tracked closely. And considering that Guantanamo itself is the larger problem that we desperately need to put in the past.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent;
Rana Forhoohar, TIME Assistant Managing Editor; Fmr. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA;
Newt Gingrich, Fmr. Republican Presidential Candidate & House Speaker (GA)
No comments:
Post a Comment