Department of "Huh?" (Iraq Casualties Edition)

[ozymandius]

from Brad DeLong's blog

Rising Hegemon tries to make sense of Veterans Affairs' claim that it projects a need to provide care for 103,000 patients who are veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That seems a very large number indeed:

Rising Hegemon: Holy Shite!: Jim Nicholson is a GOP shill who has been known to tell a lie or two to say the least. And I think there is a solid lie within this as well, but still WOW, just WOW, this is disturbing:

As the numbers of U.S. war injured in Iraq and Afghanistan soared, the Bush administration admitted to lawmakers on Tuesday it had underestimated funds to cover health care costs for veterans and Congress would have to plug a $2.6 billion hole. "The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA (health) services across the board," said Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson.The Veterans Administration assumed it would have to take care of 23,553 patients who are veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but that number had been revised upward to 103,000, Nicholson told a House of Representatives panel.Nicholson told a House Appropriations subcommittee that his agency's estimate of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in need of health care services was now four times greater than thought.

The updated figures underscored how the costs of the Iraq war, approaching $300 billion, were rippling through other parts of a federal budget already under tight spending limits. Nicholson's testimony, coming after his assurance to Congress in April that veterans' health programs were being adequately funded, angered some lawmakers.

They estimated 23,000 in APRIL 2005 --- Two months later it turned out to be 103,000!!! The lie of Nicholson is undoubtedly the "across the board" reference to the use of services. It's unlikely that Vietnam and peacetime vets are running to the VA in a huge surge. I'm not a conspiracist on the unreported deaths issue -- but something unreported is obviously going on when it comes to "wounded". Sure would be nice if the media looked into this before Atrios has to call for another conference on blogger ethics.

[Up2Late]

1. Remember how the 1991 "Gulf War" had less than 200 deaths?

Well, since then:

"...Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam...."

<http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_death_toll.html>

And From NPR.com

Health Woes for Returning U.S. Troops

March 30, 2005 -- American troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are complaining of a variety of health care problems, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study looked at who was showing up at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Aching backs, muscles and joints were their most common complaint. Next came mental health problems.

Last summer, the U.S. Army estimated that about 17 percent of soldiers in the first year of the war showed signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems. The new study does not give a similar overall figure. But it does show that the percentage with mental health problems has been rising steadily in the past year.

The large number with body aches repeats a pattern seen in the first Gulf War. Scientists still don't know the exact cause of those aches, which were symptoms of what became known as Gulf War illnesses. -- Joseph Shapiro

[libodem]

2. unreported....

I'm thinking they must figure if they don't tell us, it doesn't exist. The wounded and injured should have the best of services and care. This is where we show our real, 'support the troops', ethics. I hope that if those Veterans are denied any type of help the mainstream media will shout it from the roof tops. That's the kind of news-reporting we need. Not Scott Peterson, the runaway bride, or Michael Jackson. That little girl lost or dead in Aruba, I know it's heartbreaking but why that coverage, and not the heartbreak of all the moms and dads who have lost their children in Iraq. Sure the shark-bite boy is tragic but what about the amputees who are vets. Little is made of that. What's up with how news coverage is prioritized and what stories are hammered to death day after day? I want to hear about Veterans who are being ignored and the services that are underfunded, and had their funding recently cut by this Republican congress.

[enough]

3. Sometimes I almost think it is a good thing that Bushco

is still in office. At least they will have to sit there while some of these realities seep through into the open.