corrente

A returning Iraqi veteran, Lt. Jullian Goodrum, claims he's been denied medical treatment at Fort Knox, where he is stationed, because of his public criticism of inadequate medical care at the fort.

It may sound familiar because Lt. Goodrum's previous complaints, "sparked" congressional hearings. Or, it may sound familiar because there have been so many other similar stories.

This UP article, via Military.com, chronicles the prior story, and, in addition, what's new and worse in the story of Lt. Goodrum.

Fort Knox officials charged that soldier, Lt. Jullian Goodrum, with being absent without leave and cut off his pay after he then went to a private doctor who hospitalized him for serious mental stress from Iraq, Goodrum said.

"They are coming after me pretty bad," said Goodrum, 33, a veteran who has served the military for more than 14 years, including the first Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

He showed United Press International a form from Fort Knox that states that Fort Knox officials "do not want him in medical hold." Some soldiers are kept on medical hold during treatment while the Army determines their status.

Goodrum has now been hospitalized in a locked mental ward at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. after turning himself in there Feb. 9. Doctors there say he has post-traumatic stress disorder from Iraq and major depression, and they worry he could hurt himself. He is not allowed to go down the hall from the inpatient psychiatric clinic for a Coke without an escort.

Goodrum said stress from Iraq, and the way he has been treated by the military since he returned, has made him so depressed he is lucky to be alive. He also has injuries to both wrists, in part from loading 65-pound shells on the USS Missouri when he was in the Navy in the first Gulf War. The ship pounded Iraqi troops in Kuwait and took fire from Iraqi tanks. An Iraqi Silkworm missile missed her bow by 30 yards.

(edited)

Fort Knox spokeswoman Connie Shaffery said privacy rules prohibit her from commenting on Goodrum's case, unless he signed a waiver saying otherwise. He declined. Shaffery said a soldier who does not show up for duty is absent without leave.

In November of 2003, the Lt. asked for medical care for what he perceived to be a possible breakdown. He was denied such care and went off base to get some help. The doctor he found concurred that the Lt. required care. I suppose the Army might say that he now has that care, at Johns Hopkins, but I can tell you, as a one-time social worker, that a locked mental ward is not usually the first treatment of choice for any patient who is sufficiently in contact with reality to know he's in trouble, nor is simply ignoring such self-diagnosis until the patient tries to commit suicide considered a good treatment plan.

The Army wasn't always so negative about this guy, mind you.

Goodrum, a member of the Army Reserve, was named the 176th Maintenance Battalion's "Soldier of the Year" in 2001. He has received a host of awards, including the combat action ribbon, and positive reviews from superior officers.

"Lt. Goodrum is a truly outstanding junior officer," reads one performance evaluation from 2002. "In addition to his technical competence, he demonstrates great leadership potential. ... Promote to captain and select for advance military schooling."

Isn't this a case for Ann Coulter, manly-girl smear-artist and soldier of fortune?

I don't know about you but I've almost lost track of all the stories about the Bush administration's rampant hypocrisy when it comes to keeping its promises to the men and women of our military, (they volunteer so you won't have to, let's all remember), not only in specific cases like this one, but in its actual politicies, budgetary, logistical, and military. Another example of Eric Alterman's notion of "outrage overload."

Since we can't afford to indulge such overload, especially when it comes to our volunteer military, perhaps I shouldn't link to this article about a returning veteran who remains anonymous, but what he has to say has the ring of authenticity, and one way to fight overload is to consider each new outrage a piece of kindling added to the fire of one's outrage, which can then become the fuel necessary to get something done.

Unfortuantely, there are no links in the article for any of us who might like to do something on behalf of Lt. Goodrum, although I imagine letters to congress, particularly to those who heard his testimony the first time around, would be worth the effort.

One thought about doing something on a broader scale - John Emerson, the mysterious being formerly known as Zizka, has had the bright idea of keeping track of GOP smears against John Kerry, along with the answers that show why they are smears; the page is at his old epinomous site; currently he is one of the excellent crew at Seeing The Forrest.

One of the problems with the otherwise excellent world-wide phenomenon of lefty-blog proliferation is the scattered nature of all the invaluable information that tends to roll away from one's grasp. I've been working on how we might centralize such information, both from the past, and as it happens, at various places (blogs) around "blogtopia," (thank-you Skippy).

The question of Bush's words about his feality to our military compared to the actions of his administration seems like an excellent subject for such record keeping. All thoughts from readers and bloggers are warmly welcomed. (And when I check back here and there are only two and half comments, I am going to feel rejected)

More deja vu to consider:

So Bush has had stayover guests at the White House, and, in particular, in that holiest of holy shrines, the Lincoln bedroom that Lincoln never slept in. Well, remember all the hot hair expended over the trips President Clinton took, not only to places where he was campaigning, or might be campaigning, but complaints about state visits to India, VietNam, etc, visits dismissed as government waste and an example of the Clintons using government resources for their own enrichment. If you don't remember, I'll come up with some examples, but this post is already too long.

As I noted in a previous post, that in the always proper and moral Bush administration, there well might be an ambiguity about who pays for what parts of which trips made by the President in country, when, at night, he breaks bread over $2000 a plate dinners with a few of his best friends, Mike Allen has also noticed that this White House is not intimidated by it's own slashing criticism of the previous administration's rather less egregious record, as it turns out; that last point is mine, not Allen's, although I will admit that had Clinton had the capacity to get as many rich people to as many expensive fund-raisers as does Mr. Bush, Clinton's record might have been as egregious.

The Bush-Cheney campaign reimbursed the government $362,497 for flight services between last summer, when fundraising began, and the end of January, according to Federal Election Commission records. That includes payments for fundraising trips for Vice President Cheney and first lady Laura Bush. The campaign also repaid the government $3,259 for meals, photos and postage.

During that period, the president raised more than $103 million for his primary campaign, even though he had no opponent. The campaign will begin its most visible expenditure Thursday, when the first wave of Bush campaign ads begin airing on national cable television and on network stations in 17 key states, along with some Spanish-language outlets

Anybody wonder just how many trips were made during that period? Might be worth documenting how many, and then centralizing that information for quick access.

Quick access by whom, you may be wondering - to be addressed in another post.