Posted by ( dadw5boys ) on November 14, 2008 at 7:41 am

Tennessee Rep. Jim Copper has written a great article everyone should read. It may help you prepare for the future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jim-cooper/audit-the-books_b_143748.html

Posted by ( Chester ) on November 10, 2008 at 10:44 am

“Chester, so you are saying that rear echelon jobs, with little, if any combat exposure, could suffer from PTSD as readily as frontline infantry.“

No Russ, that is not what I am trying to point our here. I’m sure common logic and scientific studies would surely ratify the probability that PTSD is more readily encountered in frontline combat veterans. That is a given. My point is that it is unfair to assume that those who served in Vietnam, in rear echelon positions, did not or could not have encountered significant amounts of emotional stress which in turn would cause PTSD. Perhaps you have some data which shows the amount of PTSD cases in non frontline troops? How many rear echelon troops are receiving PTSD disabilty benefits?

Again, I will not try to refute that there is abuse going on, but to generalize this issue, as you have done, is illogical, in my opinion. I am unaware of any research which would support your assertion that PTSD is market driven. For your assertion to be valid, we must assume that not only are there a vast amounts of non combat and combat veterans who willingly lie to the VA., but we must also assume that the medical professionals who validate a PTSD diagnosis are either involved in some type of conspiracy or they are simply incompetent. You may readily accept such allegations, but I find the probability of the aformentioned assumptions being simultaneously present, to be miniscule.

The reality here Russ, is that while it is probable that there is some abuse going on, there is no evidence of widespread abuse of the kind you assert. Disability cases are taken on a case by case basis and unless you can somehow show that the majority of PTSD cases are “made up” then your opinion on this matter is void of any factual basis. If you are coming at this from an anectdotal perspective I would say that I respect your views, but they are lacking in factual support.

We both know what it is like to be in combat. Each of us deal with it in different ways. Every person who served in Vietnam was taken from home and put into an enviroment rife with death, grief, fear, and trauma. Who am I to say that certain experiences felt by a rear echelon troop was not tramautic and life changing? So in the end, I guess that for the most part I must trust the psychiatrists to weed out those who really have PTSD from those who are just trying to get a check.

D.Hutch,

I think we can agree that plenty of times, discussions can take a new direction. I have always viewed Jody’s blog as a free flowing exchange of ideas. My guess is that if Jody felt our present discussion was too far off topic she would tell us or simply not post the comment. I took exception to one of Russ’ points and I responded. He in turn responded and what you get is a discussion which may or may not be directly relevant to the orginal topic. I don’t see the problem with that. It is a legitimate issue being discussed by two Vietnam veterans with different opions. I find it interesting to exchange opinions with Russ. He an I both come from the same generation, we have experienced some of the same things and yet we are miles apart in our political ideology. So I guess as long as Jody allows us to take discussions away from the original topic from time to time, it will be o.k. BTW, why would you want to forget the historical era mentioned in our history? I think that is one of the main problems for veterans of that era, people just want to forget it.

Posted by ( Russ ) on November 09, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Chester, so you are saying that rear echelon jobs, with little, if any combat exposure, could suffer from PTSD as readily as frontline infantry. Well I have a different opinion, and I have actually been solicited to sign up for a PTSD check as well.

PTSD is market driven. There are those, that once they figure out that if they’re suffering from it, they can collect a check, guess what their ailment becomes. It would be the same for any other ailment as well. Once money gets involved there are those that, all of sudden, discover their affliction. 
                Now you may think that everyone receiving veterans dissability are entitled or deserving, but I don’t. Veterans programs are rife with fraud and abuse just like every other government entitlement program. That fraud and abuse reduces the amount of help that truly deserving veterans need. I would like to think that my fellow veterans would not resort to abusing the system, but I’m afraid that that’s just not the case.

Posted by ( Chester ) on November 08, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Jody,

I am a little perplexed by your response to me, bud. You are trying to draw some distinction between the allegations you have propogated against Obama and what the “far left” has voiced concerning Bush. The fact is that these associations you speak of were nothing more than tenuous relationships at best. Even the WSJ showed that Obama’s relationship with Ayers was nothing more than that. The problem is that when people take those relationships and then insert their own suspicions void of the real facts they are then unfounded allegations, nothing more. You have just essentially put forth the premise that it’s o.k. to propogate these allegations about Obama but it’s not o.k. when concerning Bush, without explaining your logic. I’m assuming that you are somewhat defensive due to the fact that when Bush delcared his 51% victory a mandate, he also clearly indicated that it gave him free reign to do whatever he liked. Unfortunately, our country has reaped the “benefits” of his policies as evidenced by the variety of problems Obama is now left with. The reality is that Bush did whatever he liked despite the fact that 48% of us voted for Kerry and we were simply written off. You will have to forgive me but I don’t recall you being such a stalwart of the 48% of Kerry voters. Double standard? Perhaps, but I tend to think your partisanship was clearly evident at that time and if my memory serves me correctly you were certainly not quick to bring up the point that the 48% of Kerry voters should not be written off.

Concerning the participants who were very vocal about their oppostiton to Bush. I guess I fall into that category. I don’t recall ever calling him a terrorist, the anti-christ, Facist, Marxist, Nazi, etc. etc. There is no doubt in my mind he lied us into war though. The evidence is clear. We have the statements of John Snow, Scott McCellan. We have the reporting of Bob Woodward. We have the Downing Street Memo. We have the numerous CIA intelligence studies. We have the Senate Intelligence Committee which found that Bush did in fact misuse intelligence to lead us into war http://intelligence.senate.gov/pubcurrent.html.
In fact, Bush himself has openly admitted that there ended up being no WMD’s in Iraq. Don’t you think that if there was any evidence to the contrary he would trot it out, if for nothing more than to save face?
One would think that when the Presidents Press Secretary comes out and says that the intelligence was fixed around the policy, which coincidentally echoes the numerous government reports, former administration officials statements, and reporting; it pretty much lets us know that we were duped. Plain and simple. But you see that didn’t matter once the American people turned against this war. Why? Because Bush had a self declared mandate. So I call em’ like I see em’. If it is spewing hate to simply take factual information which shows deception and therefore call the President a liar then so be it. Your logic makes no sense regarding this. For example, should we have held our tounges and respected Richard Nixon when it was discovered that he blantantly misused the public trust for his own political gain? I don’t think so.

Russ,

I find it appalling that you would deduce the experiences of those in combat zones as not being relevant to PTSD because they didn’t fire their weapon. You know, I did two tours. I was there in 66-67 with the 9th Infantry Division operating out of Camp Martin Cox otherwise effectionately known as “Bear Cat” and again in 1968 with the 5th in wonderful Quang Tri. I got to leave early in 68’ thanks to a Chicom. I always like to say that I’m still so full of metal that I p!$$ rust. Anyway, I don’t doubt that that there are plenty who abuse the system. I spent months at a VA upon my return and I saw plenty of guys take advantage of the government. But, let us be realistic. You don’t have to fire your weapon while in a combat zone to be adversely effected by a conflict. Take your cousin for example. While he never fired his weapon, I’m sure that if he was stationed in Da Nang he was there when the base got hit over and over. You can’t expect the experiences of guys like that to be non traumatizing just because they didn’t go through the things you and I did. The war was real for everyone who served in their own way and as such all were affected. It’s not fair to minimize that for anyone.

Posted by ( Russ ) on November 07, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Jody, I too am a Vietnam Veteran, and I’m not judging anyone, cause I don’t know these folks, and everything they claim to be may very well be true. However, I’d like to relate some things I’ve experienced.

Firstly, I was in the Marine Corp, 2nd Bat. 4th Marines, Fox Company, a “ground pounder,“ “Grunt,“ infantry, you get the idea, served thirteen months, September of ‘67 to October ‘68. I served in I Corp, mainly from Dong Ha north to the DMZ and west to the Laotian border.                            I have had several occasions where I have encountered men who say they suffer from PTSD and God only knows what else, and they can’t remember their outfit, where they were, or at times, what year they were even in country. I did not mention my being a veteran, and only listened to them talk. In Vietnam there were ten support troops for every line grunt, and the support troops were serving, in what was for the most part, relatively secure areas, sleeping in a bed, or on a cot, in the dry.

That doesn’t mean on occasion they weren’t exposed to combat, they were. However, for the most part they were not. Like my brother-in-law, who was in the Air Force stationed in Da Nang, he never fired his weapon.

My point is that sometimes, PTSD is brought on by the 500 dollars a month the VA pays, for those suffering from it’s effects. Again, I’m not saying that’s the situation of any poster here. I’m just saying there are people out there doing that.