Archive

The tragedy that is the VA | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

The tragedy that is the VA

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and President Barack Obama are both “mad as hell” to learn about dishonesty at a Phoenix VA hospital that might have cost the lives of dozens of seriously ill veterans — perhaps 40 or more sick patients who had been told they were going to receive treatment but actually were not and instead were placed on secret waiting lists, their names to be crossed off when they died.

It was a curious experience to watch Gen. Shinseki’s testimony to Congress. He was the picture of passive-aggression as he appeared to simmer indignantly over the scandal that is overwhelming the VA, the agency he was supposed to have led for the past five years. He talked as if he were only a passer-by, a tourist perhaps, checking out the Capitol and Congress.

Hard on his heels was the president’s cadaverous chief of staff, Denis McDonough, clearly out on the usual White House spin mission, saying the president was also “madder than hell” and “intends to get to the bottom of this.” One wonders, can we ever believe anything this administration says?

Thanks to reporter Jim McElhatton, writing in The Washington Times, we now know that Obama and Shinseki were warned back in 2008 that the Department of Veterans Affairs was a disaster and that the lives of its patients were endangered. And there’s growing anecdotal evidence that phony waiting lists have been used at VA facilities across the country.

We have a federal government where no one ever seems to be fired for incompetence or misfeasance.

Richard W. Carlson is a former U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles and the former director of the Voice of America.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.