An Iraq veteran sees the Walter Reed deficiencies as part of a pattern.

On February 19, 2007, Keith Olbermann devoted a segment of "Countdown" to the Washington Post report on conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. He first aired a report from Dana Priest, one of the reporters who wrote the article for the Washington Post. Then Olbermann interviewed Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a political action committee whose objective is to help Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who run for public office. Here is the transcript of that interview.

OLBERMANN: Is the Washington Post account of the outpatient conditions at Walter Reed consistent with the accounts you‘re hearing from around the country?

SOLTZ: You know sir, I think the Washington Post piece speaks for itself. Walter Reed is in a specifically different position than some of the other out patient places around the United States Army and the Department of Defense. You know, last year the Republican Congress decided they were going to have BRAC a lot of military installations around the country, which means Base Realignment and Closure. Walter Reed came up on that list.

I think you're seeing the affects of that policy, which is “Why are you going to fix the paint and clear the mice out of an institution that's closing?” I think the second striking thing about this piece is that this is actually part of the Department of Defense. This is not the Veterans Administration, which we know is woefully underfunded.

The DOD is responsible for these soldiers until they leave active duty. So, basically, the same administration that brought us no body armor and no up-armored humvees [is] the same administration that just brought us mice at Walter Reed, and their support for the war fighter is abysmal.

OLBERMANN: Even if this country had to pay full price at private hospitals so these guys, our neighbors and friends, could get the care that they need, at full price, no insurance, could the cost possibly amount to more than a microscopic fraction of the billions we’ve seen vanish down the rabbit holes in Iraq?

SOLTZ: No sir, not at all. You know, VoteVets.org, we did this big commercial with body armor and we blew up the body armor. It cost me 1,000 dollars on eBay to buy the piece. When my unit went to Iraq, we were cross leveling plates. We didn‘t have up-armored humvees. It took public embarrassment for that.

So, the tactical equipment is actually not that expensive. And what makes it so shocking is the money is there for the Pentagon. They get what they request. They get the supplementals from Congress. So what this is this is an administration that’s dedicated to the high end corporate contractors, you know, the high end weapons systems in the sky, the super duper missile defense systems that alienate our allies. These are the same people that are making 40 million dollars a year on their corporate contracts.

And that money is coming into the political system on one side. And one of the really great things we do at VoteVets.org is we try to fight for the war fighter. In this specific case there's no reason why we can’t spend the small money on the regular war fighter, when we’re spending the large money on weapons systems that aren’t making a difference in the war on terror.

OLBERMANN: Where is the protest over this? I mean, we’ve heard this political nonsense about Iraq veterans being spit on, or symbolically spit at, and claims withdrawn, and a huge political hub-ub made over this, where are the Republicans speaking about the treatment of these maimed Americans? And where are the Democrats in their protest on this? Where is that? Why is there no outrage about this extraordinary circumstance?

SOLTZ: You know, I think there’s a larger issue. A lot of people think supporting the troops right now is putting a three dollar yellow magnet made in Hong Kong on the back of their Hummer, saying they support the troops. So, I think the debate, it’s been absent for a long time.

People would rather flip the channel than deal with the war. You know, as for the Republicans, they just presented another budget—the president just did a new budget that slams the V.A. two years down the road. It was woefully under-funded last year, by two billion dollars.

As for the Democrats, I think we are seeing movements in this direction. You know, Congressman Murtha’s plan here is basically not to let more guys go to Iraq unless they’re trained properly, unless they’re equipped properly. So this is the first time we’re actually seeing oversight from Congress. And I expect to see that.

There’s no reason why the president and secretary of defense, who controls this facility, shouldn’t have an immediate investigation and Congress should demand hearings immediately on this, because our troops deserve the best and they deserve support that’s worthy of the sacrifice they’re making in this war.

(emphasis added). This is just another example of why I get angry when I hear Bush, anyone in his administration, any Republican in Congress, and anyone who supports them say that they support the troops while people who have opposed the war at any time do not support the troops.

You want to support the troops? Well then, send them to war with adequate equipment. Don't force them to spend their own money to buy some of that equipment. Make sure that those who come back injured receive adequate treatment. Show that you value their lives and their service more than the private corporations who have the big contracts. Until then, don't preach about supporting the troops.