Where are you, Kit?

Kit Bond has been doing a fairly good job of staying out of my particular doghouse because he has been pretty good about many issues that affect veterans and our current military forces, issues that I care deeply about and place paramount importance on.

So why hasn't he signed on as a co-sponsor to S22?

S22 is the bill introduced by Senator Webb in his very first floor speech when he assumed the seat previously held by George "Macacca" Allen, intended to provide todays veterans with the same sort of education package that the vets who returned from WWII received - education, room and board covered, and a living stipend provided.

I can't understand why this bill doesn't have 99 cosponsors. I mean, aren't we all supposed to support the troops? There's a war on! But fifteen months after it was introduced, the bill still lacks enough cosponsors to get past the 60-vote hurdle to overcome obstruction on the part of the chickenhawk party.

I shake my head in wonderment. The GI Bill transformed America. It made the middle class possible, and every dollar spent on the GI Bill was returned to the economy seven times over. It made us a better, stronger and more diverse nation.

The promise of educational assistance is one of the most effective recruiting tools we have at our disposal, but it is more than that. It is a promise made to those who enlist that this country appreciates their sacrifice and their service and we will stand by them and help them move up in society in return for their service to protect it.

When I started reading the background for this post, my intention was to take John McCain to task for his failure to sign on to this decent, common-sense bill, but I care a lot more about the Senator my state elected than that old goat.

I take this all rather personally. I am from a farm family in rural Missouri community. The people from my community (not just my family) for the most part got their college educations via the GI Bill and ROTC scholarships, and the entire community is damned proud of the bootstraps.

So what's the holdup, Senator? All I can figure is you value obstruction by the minority party more highly than you value our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. And it is especially troubling since Senator Bond's son served in Iraq as an intelligence officer.

There's more: "Where are you, Kit?" >>

Sen. Bond's Failing Memory

In a letter to the New York Times, Missouri's Senator Kit Bond writes:

While I agree that we had the wrong plan [in Iraq] for three years, we now have the right one, and the right man to lead it.

In response, Glenn Greenwald writes:

That being the case, one would expect that Kit Bond spent the last three years protesting our war strategy, lamenting our lack of progress, and demanding that we change course.

As we used to say in Indiana, that'd be a "No, Bob." Bond spent the last three years claiming the U.S. was winning in Iraq.

But this isn't the first time Bond's memory has been faulty. On September 18, 2006, Bond stated that there have been no terrorist attacks since September 11th on American soil. He, like many others, seem to forget the 2001 anthrax attacks which began a week after Septemper 11th, and which remain unsolved. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two U.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. Of course, spores in an envelope are easier to forget than planes flying into buildings.

There's more: "Sen. Bond's Failing Memory" >>

Taking a step to right a wrong

There is a travesty occurring in our midst, and my Senators are doing something about it.

Yesterday, Missouri Senators Christopher (Kit) Bond and Claire McCaskill joined forces to sponsor an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008 that would temporarily suspend the Pentagon’s use of Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13: “Separation Because of Personality Disorder” discharge for combat veterans, pending a thorough and comprehensive review of the current procedures and the establishment of an independent discharge review board. They were joined by additional co-sponsors Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray.

Senator Bond was the only Republican to sign on, and this Missourian gives him a standing ovation for putting sound policy and the welfare of those who step up to serve ahead of politics.

"Abuse of personality disorder discharges is inexcusable. This amendment will put a stop to these discharges until we can fix the system," said Senator Bond. "The men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom have earned a debt of gratitude from all Americans that we will never be able to pay in full. The very least we can do is take care of their battle wounds, whether physical or mental, and ensure they receive the treatment and benefits they deserve."

The abuse of the 5-13 is especially insidious, because it is being used to deny combat veterans the benefits and care we owe them. A Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine discharged under Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13 stands to lose all benefits. They can not collect disability pay; even for life-altering injuries sustained in combat; nor are they entitled to medical care through the VA for those very combat injuries.

In a prepared statement, Senator McCaskill said “We have no greater obligation to those who serve our country in the Armed Services than to ensure they get the care they’ve been promised. We cannot stand tall and proud as Americans if we allow one single service member to go without the benefits they deserve due to a misdiagnosis. Far too many combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are returning with mental health injuries that bear the potential for misdiagnosis, and we need to do all we can to prevent that from occurring.”

(Click to enlarge)

The use of the 5-13 has skyrocketed in recent years, rising precipitously as the occupation of Iraq takes its toll. G.I.’s who are seriously affected by PTSD and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) the signature injury of this conflict, have been discharged from service under the 5-13, which implies a pre-existing condition – even when they have received service commendations, been allowed to reenlist, and received reenlistment bonuses – only to find out when they are out-processing that they will have to repay thousands of dollars of their reenlistment bonuses. The bonuses carry with them a commitment to serve the entire enlistment. If it is not served, they leave with no benefits, no care for their injuries, and in debt for the portion of their bonus that the military paid and did not get service for.

I could go on for pages. I really could. I have. (See here, here, here, here, and here) But if a picture is worth a thousand words, the video of those who have been screwed over by this sickening scam should be worth a thousand calls to the Senate switchboard. Here is the number (202) 225-3121.



After serving honorably and going to war, they are simply thrown away.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

There's more: "Taking a step to right a wrong" >>

Are we journalists? We strive to be.

While everyone frets over whether or not bloggers are journalists, I know that my Republican Senator’s staff regards our enterprise here as such.

Today Senator Kit Bond’s office sent a letter to his colleagues asking them to add their signatures to another letter, this one to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, demanding that the issue of the 5-13 discharge be investigated and obvious abuses set right. (apologies to the senators office. I had problems with the .pdf and the google docs are not nearly as pretty.)

The abuse of the 5-13 Discharge is an issue because bloggers made it such (examples here and here) after a piece in The Nation, How Specialist Towne Lost His Benefits. We seized on the issue, as we had the larger mental health issues for returning GI’s and the understaffing of Vet Centers. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here). We kept bringing it up until it gained traction, even though the mainstream media largely ignored the issue, and continues to do so.

“Bloggers have helped bring the necessary scrutiny to this important issue.” Said Shana Marchio, Communications Director for Senator Kit Bond (R-MO). “Bloggers offer folks a new medium to get their information and news. Their importance in the debating and sharing of ideas should not be discounted. At the same time, the relationship between bloggers and members of Congress and their spokespeople is an evolving one. Both sides are learning who to trust and how to interact. As a part of the Fourth Estate, it is essential that professional bloggers adhere to the ethics and professional conduct standards that traditional members of the media follow as their role in information sharing continues to grow. Also, I do believe that bloggers will only be come more important in coming elections and it’s important to start a dialogue.”

This is all new territory for everyone. But I think I know why the best source I have in Washington is the Communications Director for my Republican Senator. She is 30 years old. Where blogs and the internet are concerned, she instinctively “gets” it because she grew up with technology. I may have policy disagreements with my Republican Senator – but credit where credit is due. He was smart enough to hire a young person with that innate sense for press second six years ago, and promote to communications director from within.

On the trust issue, everyone has to be prepared to get burned once or twice. But getting burned is part of the bargain when you blaze a trail. So we move forward cautiously. The importance of the free exchange of information is only going to gain in importance. As it does, the issues will work themselves out.

Bloggers do not have the immediate access that reporters working the Washington bureaus have, nor do we have the resources to do a lot of original reporting. All we really have are our wits and our words...and our word. Because that is the irrefutable dynamic, the blogs represent a truly new, and meretricious, form of media, and we will earn exactly the amount of credibility and respect that we deserve.

There's more: "Are we journalists? We strive to be." >>

It's Official! Barnes is in!

At 12:30 central Kay Barnes will announce her candidacy for the MO-06 congressional seat, currently occupied by Sam Graves. She is making the announcement at a press conference in front of her 94-year-old mother’s house in St. Joseph surrounded by four generations of family.

Come January 2009 – Kansas City will be boasting not one, but two former Mayors in the House of Representatives. This will tip the 5-4 balance of the Missouri delegation to favor the Democrats. (I'm dancin' in my jammies here!)

Sam Graves managed to secure the seat in 2000 after a close race with Steve Danner, and hasn’t really faced an opponent capable of mounting a campaign against him since. His opponent in the 06 mid-terms, Sara Jo Shettles, gained the endorsement of the KC Star, but still managed to garner only about 40% of the vote after a vicious and slanderous barrage of smear from Graves and the trailer-trash version of Karl Rove, the loathsome toad Jeff Roe. (Here is the gist of the story…over 20 years ago Ms. Shettles sold advertising for the pop-science magazine Omni. Omni was a Bob Guiccione publication, so Ms. Shettles was a pornographer. Ro(v)e called her answering machine and did a burlesque routine. Classy guy.)

Sara Jo Shettles is, I’m sure, a very nice lady and would have done a fine job in the House. But she didn’t have a couple of the requisite ingredients to push back against the Graves-Ro(v)e slime machine. She didn’t have the money, and she didn’t have the name recognition. Barnes has both, in spades. I almost forgot…the endorsement of Walter Cronkite is a given…He is her first cousin.

It doesn’t hurt Barnes any that the Graves brand name is being tarnished by the US Attorney scandal – Sam Graves is the brother of Todd Graves, one of the ousted US Attorneys – and the only one who had another side-scandal working that involved the long-standing Missouri tradition of patronage for political donors in the form of MO Department of Revenue fee offices. Every license plate in Missouri is issued by a political crony, and it’s that way no matter which party controls the Governor’s office.

Jeff Ro(v)e predictably dismissed the challenge, of course. I think he said something about values or some such. It was pretty much whipping a dead horse. Oh yeah, I remember now…Sam Graves represents the values of the 26 counties of the 6th district, Barnes represents the values of the 26 blocks of downtown KC. She will have a very difficult time convincing people in St. Joseph and the Northland that downtown Kansas City should get a second member of Congress. (I wonder if Ro(v)e noticed that Missouri's senior Senator, Kit Bond, has not ruled out endorsing Barnes over Graves? I sure did! Graves has problems in his party. I don't know what he has done, but he has pissed off a lot of the states Republican powerful.)

Well, I have something Ro(v)e might not. I have relatives and deep roots in the tall corn of the MO 06. I’ve actually bought the tags for my car in a fabric store on the town square of a rural county in the 06. My relatives and their neighbors are not happy. The Republican franchise is tainted up there right now. Iraq and Medicaid cuts have poured vinegar in the Republican's milk and they can't take the rural areas for granted any longer.

Given the choice between someone who spent the last eight years in Washington doing a mediocre job, and someone who spent the last 8 years leading the biggest city in the district to revitalization and prosperity – I have every reason to believe they will select the girl from St. Joe done good.

There's more: "It's Official! Barnes is in!" >>

One of Senator Bond’s Staffers Wanted Graves Gone…

A new twist to the U.S. Attorney scandal, specifically as the light of scrutiny shines on the Kansas City office, involves Senator Kit Bond’s office.

Senator Bond’s office revealed yesterday that Jack Bartling, former counsel to Senator Bond, had targeted Todd Graves for replacement in 2005, even contacting the White House counsels office to express this desire.

Problem is, the Senator wasn’t told a damned thing about it.

A spokeswoman for Bond said yesterday that the senator's former counsel, Jack Bartling, contacted the White House counsel's office in the spring of 2005, without Bond's permission. According to the spokeswoman, Bartling said that Graves's replacement "would be favored," because the prosecutor's wife and brother-in-law had stirred ethics complaints in Missouri.

Graves’ name later appeared on the original list of attorneys whose ouster was sought but who were not any of the eight forced out in the Purge. Two of the three whose names have been redacted had left of their own volition. Graves was one of the two.

Bond's communications director, Shana Marchio, said that, around the time Graves resigned, administration officials told the senator's staff that Bartling's prodding did not prompt the prosecutor's departure but that they had "their own reasons" for wanting him removed. Marchio said they did not specify the reasons.

Last night, Graves issued a statement that said: "This would be humorous if we were not talking about the United States Department of Justice. First, you tell me that DOJ staffers were making secret hit lists and my name was on one of them. Then, you tell me that a staffer for Missouri's senior senator had a hit list so secret that not even the senator knew about it."

Mr. Graves – if anyone had told me four years ago that I would be defending you, and missing John Ashcroft – I would have started the process for their involuntary commitment. But look what it says at the top of this page… For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

I think this mess qualifies.

There's more: "One of Senator Bond’s Staffers Wanted Graves Gone…" >>

Standing Up for Soldiers: Part II

On April 19th I reported on this blog that a bipartisan Senate delegation had requested a GAO accounting of the treatment not being afforded repatriated veterans suffering from Traumatic Brain injuries and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The abuses have occurred on various posts, but by far the worst abuses seem to be coming from Fort Carson, Colorado.

I learned today in an email from a staffer in Senator Bond's office letting me know that the Senators are not sitting on their hands and doing nothing while the GAO investigates. They are going to go to Fort Carson for a first-hand look around in two weeks.

I say good for them. I extend that gratitude to every last one of them of both parties. And while I'm being bipartisan, I want to take the opportunity to thank a particular staffer in Senator Bonds office for reaching across party lines and keeping me informed on this issue. This is one of those things that is just bigger and more important than partisanship. If we can't work together on this, we all need to go back to Kindergarten until we learn to play well with others.

There's more: "Standing Up for Soldiers: Part II" >>

Standing Up for Soldiers

“Combat stress and its impact on our soldiers and their families is a serious problem that continues to grow. Reports that our military is unprepared or unwilling to deal with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or other mental health problems are unacceptable. Being unprepared for these problems is no excuse for inaction. It is our duty to take care of the brave men and women who have answered the call to duty," Senator Kit Bond.

“Our men and women returning from war should receive mental health care equal to the physical medical care they are given, and anything less is unacceptable. It took this country 15 years after Vietnam to look at the mental health needs of veterans. We can’t do that to another generation of soldiers.” Senator Claire McCaskill

A bipartisan senate panel on Thursday sent a letter to the General Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a review of the mental health care afforded our veterans in light of a flood of damning reports on conditions at Walter Reed and Ft. Carson. (Since I mentioned Fot. Carson, let me say: IG – Fort Carson. - NOW!)

The Senators who have stood up for our veterans by sending this letter are Kit Bond (R) and Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri, Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barack Obama (D-IL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

Senators Bond, Boxer and Obama get credit for being ahead of the curve on this issue. They have consistently expressed their concerns on mental health and the returning soldier. I wish to thank them for taking up the issue, and also for their steadfast persistence in pursuing it and demanding it get the attention it deserves.

Kudos to all of the Senators of both parties for requesting the GAO review of mental health services. This is a vital and firm first step to rectifying a travesty of abuse, neglect and mistreatment of Veterans by the Department of Defense. Abuse of the 5-13 discharge needs special attention. Especially those issued at Fort Carson.

Remember, folks, I read the GAO reports so you don’t have too. This is definitely one I am looking forward to. (But the white paper I really want to see is an Inspector General’s report on Fort Carson…)

There's more: "Standing Up for Soldiers" >>

Which is worse? When outrages occur, or when they stop surprising you?

There is an insidious abuse of troops taking place in the shadows, and it needs to be exposed to strong overhead light.

It is the use of the 5-13 discharge to cull injured troops from service and deny them future benefits through the VA. A 5-13 is a psych discharge. It brands the veteran as having a personality disorder, an Axis II disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association. Personality disorders are deemed pre-existing conditions, and therefore the military is absolved of all future responsibility to those veterans.

Take the story of Specialist Jon Town, reported by Joshua Kors in the April 9 issue of The Nation.

Jon Town has spent the last few years fighting two battles, one against his body, the other against the US Army. Both began in October 2004 in Ramadi, Iraq. He was standing in the doorway of his battalion's headquarters when a 107-millimeter rocket struck two feet above his head. The impact punched a piano-sized hole in the concrete facade, sparked a huge fireball and tossed the 25-year-old Army specialist to the floor, where he lay blacked out among the rubble.

"The next thing I remember is waking up on the ground." Men from his unit had gathered around his body and were screaming his name. "They started shaking me. But I was numb all over," he says. "And it's weird because... because for a few minutes you feel like you're not really there. I could see them, but I couldn't hear them. I couldn't hear anything. I started shaking because I thought I was dead."

Eventually the rocket shrapnel was removed from Town's neck and his ears stopped leaking blood. But his hearing never really recovered, and in many ways, neither has his life. A soldier honored twelve times during his seven years in uniform, Town has spent the last three struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. By September 2006 he and the Army agreed he was no longer combat-ready.

But instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him because of his injuries, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado, did something strange: They claimed Town's wounds were actually caused by a "personality disorder." Town was then booted from the Army and told that under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits.

Town is not alone. A six-month investigation has uncovered multiple cases in which soldiers wounded in Iraq are suspiciously diagnosed as having a personality disorder, then prevented from collecting benefits. The conditions of their discharge have infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans' rights groups, even military officials required to process these dismissals.

The number of 5-13’s coming down has ballooned. It has reached the point where they would have us believe that the Army took an entire Division of hinky, psychologically damaged troops in recent years. Even with the number of waivers that have been issued to meet recruiting quotas (17%) that stretches credulity.

Not surprisingly, Fort Carson is at the vanguard of soldier abuse and neglect. Again. For cryin’ out loud, can we get an IG on-post please? Preferably a hardass. I mean, what the hell is it going to take? You hear a tale of soldiers being abused by the system, you won’t have to listen long before you hear “Fort Carson” in that conversation. And this scandal is no exception. The command culture there once again sets the bar for fecklessness and mendacity as low as it has ever been.

Inspector General.

Fort Carson.

Now.

Got that?

Okay.

Now that we have settled that, let’s talk about Feres v U.S., the 1950 Supreme Court decision that protected military medical professionals from civil suit. Because of this ruling, there is no recourse of accountability for mental health professionals who mislead vulnerable and compromised troops.

Who will be the courageous congressperson who will sponsor the legislation that gives the troops the right to seek civil remedy for professional malfeasance at the hands of military health professionals?

In the meantime, since legislation moves slowly, Senator Bond needs to move forward with his threat and launch a congressional investigation into the abuse of 5-13 discharges to avoid fulfilling responsibilities to wounded and damaged troops. And every single 5-13 discharge that has been processed in the last four years should be thoroughly reviewed, and those found to have been misdiagnosed should have their benefits restored, retroactively.

We have 535 elected officials. Will just one stand up for what is right here?

There's more: "Which is worse? When outrages occur, or when they stop surprising you?" >>

Folded like a cheap suit...

Thankfully, Swift Boat Liars are not a fortified bunch.

In the face of questioning by the man he helped malign, St. Louis businessman Sam Fox has had his specious nomination as Ambassador to Belgium withdrawn.

But the genie is out of the bottle, and both senators from Missouri need to be accountable for their support of this creep.

A feckless, mendacious jackal is a feckless, mendacious jackal, and I don't care whether he's a home-town boy or not.

There's more: "Folded like a cheap suit..." >>

Senate Bill 214: Bond Statement on Vote

I may disagree philosophically with the vote cast by Senator Bond, but I respect his reasoning, and I certainly have no truck with his communications director who got back to me after 5:00 p.m. with his statement on the vote:

"I agree 100 percent that politics should not play a role in how a
prosecutor decides what cases to bring or how to argue a case before a
judge, but I also believe that the Constitution got it right.
Presidents, subject to Senate confirmation, should have the power to
nominate their prosecutors. If we elect a President to be tough on
crime, or go after terrorists, we expect his or her prosecutors to share
those commitments and not pursue their own unelected agenda."

"I voted to repeal the special Patriot Act provision for U.S. Attorneys. But I did not want the deck stacked against defendants with
judge-appointed prosecutors, so I supported using the existing law
already covering every other appointee, which is the deputy serves
temporarily until the President nominates and the Senate confirms a
successor."

"We shouldn't punt to judges the duty the constitution assigns to the
President and Senate."

Shana Marchio

Communications Director

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)

I still disagree, but I can certainly see the Senator's point, and I thank him for making the statement and I thank Ms. Marchio for responding to my request after hours.

There's more: "Senate Bill 214: Bond Statement on Vote" >>

Mental Health and the Returning Soldier

When Tyler Jennings returned to Ft. Carson, Colorado from Iraq, he became depressed and anxious. It got so bad, he decided to kill himself. One night in mid-May of last year, with his wife out of town, he tied a noose around his neck, opened a window and sat on the ledge, drinking vodka - hoping he would get so drunk that he would either slip and fall or work up the nerve to propel himself to his death.

Five months before, he had sought help from mental health professionals on base who reported his symptoms as "Crying spells... hopelessness... helplessness... worthlessness." When the Sergeants who supervised his platoon found out he was seeking therapy and self-medicating, they began to haze him. That hazing he was subjected to was what drove him to that ledge that May night, with a bottle of vodka and a noose around his neck. He was made suicidal by the threats of those Sergeants to eject him from the Army rather than see he got the help he not only needed...but deserved.

"You know, there were many times I've told my wife -- in just a state of panic, and just being so upset -- that I really wished I just died over there, cause if you just die over there, everyone writes you off as a hero."

After hitting bottom in May, Jennings called his supervisor to report that he had nearly suicided and that he would be skipping formation to check himself into a psychiatric facility; per DoD clinical guidelines; which state explicitly that soldiers with suicidal ideations should be hospitalized.

Instead of working within those guidelines, a team of soldiers was sent to his home, to arrest him for being AWOL for missing work. "I had them pounding on my door out there. They're saying 'Jennings, you're AWOL. The police are going to come get you. You've got 10 seconds to open up this door,'" Jennings said. "I was really scared about it. But finally, I opened the door up for them, and I was like 'I'm going to the hospital.'"

What Tyler Jennings experienced was not an isolated incidence. Numerous Soldiers at Ft. Carson who have returned from Iraq have reported that they feel betrayed by the way they have been treated when they returned and had problems adjusting to life stateside. Those they answer to have marginalized them and branded them as "weak willed."

This in spite of the evidence accumulated by the DoD studies that show 20-25% of all returnees will experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or other difficulties readjusting to life back home. These are soldiers who had no reprimands prior to serving in Iraq, but who began to spin out of control upon their return.

Nearly all of these soldiers said that the problems they experienced were exacerbated by supervisors and fellow soldiers who castigated them for having emotional difficulties. Some supervisors admit it freely, maintaining that there is no place in the Army for those who can't deal. Other supervisors accuse those experiencing difficulty of malingering, or even cowardice; refusing to believe they are truly experiencing difficulty, instead they just don't want to go back to war. In a report on NPR, two Sergeants interviewed said they often refused to allow soldiers in their charge the time to attend mental health counseling sessions.

Military spokespersons maintain that soldiers diagnosed with PTSD or other serious emotional and readjustment issues can attend group therapy sessions on their bases, but the soldiers at Ft. Carson aver that in many instances the group sessions only served to exacerbate their problems and make them feel worse.

Those seeking treatment are told by the therapists that they are not permitted to criticize their Officers and Sergeants, even thought it is the Officers and Sergeants who are harassing them and punishing them for being "weak minded."

Only in the military can you be prohibited from bringing up in therapy what is really bothering you.

The military issue has become enough of a public concern that Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barak Obama (D-IL) and Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO) (Senator Bond's son is currently serving in Iraq) have asked the Pentagon to open an investigation into the treatment - and punishment - of returning soldiers who experience difficulty with mental health issues. "It is tremendously problematic that Fort Carson officials take it upon themselves to make medical determinations without input from mental health professionals," the senators said in the letter to Dr. William Winkenwerder, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

Besides asking for an investigation, the senators asked Winkenwerder to look into whether commanders at Fort Carson, near Colorado Springs, have given a low priority to mental health treatment for soldiers suffering from service-connected mental health problems, and what plans there are to correct any such problem.

They also want details about available mental health treatment for soldiers, how many soldiers at Fort Carson have sought treatment in the past four years, and how many have been diagnosed with PTSD after service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"The goal, first and foremost, is to identify who's having a problem," said Winkenwerder. "Secondly, it's to provide immediate support. And finally, our goal is to restore good mental health."

The Army is very fond of touting the programs it has in place to care for soldiers, pointing out that the Pentagon has sent therapists to Iraq to work with soldiers on the ground.

All the programs in the world can't help Soldiers who are not allowed to utilize those services.

This is an issue that can't be ignored. The soldiers were sent into harms way deserve to receive the treatment they need, and how you feel about the war is irrelevant, put that aside for now. This is a bigger issue. These are real people, they are our fellow Americans, and they have been betrayed by their Sergeants and Commanders.

Don't let them be betrayed by American citizens. We have been down that path before, and it was not to our credit. Contact the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees; and the Senators who have demanded the investigation.

This is a tragedy and these soldiers deserve better.

Demand they get it.

There's more: "Mental Health and the Returning Soldier" >>