Thanks for everything, Dick and George.
Courtesy of reader Hell Kat, here’s a story from CNN today.
An extensive federal report released Monday concludes that roughly one
in four of the 697,000 U.S. veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War suffer
from Gulf War illness.That illness is a condition now identified as the likely
consequence of exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides and a
drug administered to protect troops against nerve gas.The
452-page report states that “scientific evidence leaves no question
that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious
consequences for affected veterans.”The report, compiled by a
panel of scientific experts and veterans serving on the congressionally
mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses,
fails to identify any cure for the malady.It also notes that few veterans afflicted with Gulf War illness have recovered over time.
The report, titled “Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans,” was officially presented Monday to Secretary ofVeterans Affairs
James Peak. Noting that overall funding for research into Gulf War
illness has declined dramatically since 2001, it calls for a “renewed
federal research commitment” to “identify effective treatments for Gulf
War illness and address other priority Gulf War health issues.”According to the report, Gulf War illness is a “complex of multiple
concurrent symptoms” that “typically includes persistent memory and
concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain,
gastrointestinal problems, and other chronic abnormalities.”The illness is identified as the consequence of multiple “biological alterations” affecting the brain and nervous system.
While it is sometimes difficult to issue a specific diagnosis of the
disease, it is, according to the report, no longer difficult to
identify a cause.The report identifies two Gulf War
“neurotoxic” exposures that “are causally associated with Gulf War
illness.” The first is the ingestion of pyridostigmine bromide (PB)
pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents. The second
is exposure to dangerous pesticides used during the conflict.The report does not rule out other possible contributors to Gulf War
illness — including low-level exposure to nerve agents and close
proximity to oil well fires — though it fails to establish any clear
link.The report concludes there is no clear
linkage between the illness and a veteran’s exposure to factors such as
depleted uranium or an anthrax vaccine administered at the time.
This bit really stuck out to me:
overall funding for research into Gulf War
illness has declined dramatically since 2001
Hmm. Now what could have happened in 2001 that could have caused this? Let’s think really, really hard…
Here’s how shitty the Republican Party is: You can’t tell whether this funding cut was due to Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney wanting to hush up any problems from the first Iraq War (can’t have Daddy and Uncle Dick looking bad!), or just part and parcel of the usual Republican plan to cut every social service in existence and further fuck over everyone who’s not already rich. These motherfuckers make “support the troops” a cruel joke instead of a crappy slogan.
Shame on you, CNN, for not including information on who cut funding and when. I hate this passive-voice journalism crap. “Funding has declined.” Bullshit. Try this: People in the Bush administration cut funding for research into Gulf War Syndrome to the bone as soon as they took office. See that? Aren’t active verbs better?
I’m not saying that I know what Gulf War Syndrome is, or if there’s just one cause, or anything. But there are a lot of people who are sick and hurting, and we need to find out why and what to do for them. We’ve been dragging our feet for a long time on this one.
Now, now, just because mistakes were made, there’s no sense asking the gotcha media to play the blame game.
Two things:
– My uncle went over there as a support tech guy. I think he spent about 1/4th of his time in the sand and the rest of it in Germany and England, but he was out there and he came back with some problems. He died very young (late 40s, I think) and when he died, he was a shell of a man. Something horrible got him, even though they kept saying nothing happened out there. I remember the last time I saw him and it was haunting. He was in a chair and had just woken up. It took all the strength he had to shake my hand. His paw, which was once very strong, loosely hung there and looked like someone had put a rubber glove on his hand and inflated the hand (not the fingers) part. He was bald, had a long scraggly goatee and he could barely talk. It still sits in the recesses of my mind as one of the most difficult things I’ve ever seen face to face. This report, I hope, will be the first of many that clarify that this wasn’t some random event that just happened to him. This is part of a larger problem that needs to be dealt with.
– I really, really, really hate this line:
“Shame on you, CNN, for not including information on who cut funding and when. I hate this passive-voice journalism crap. “Funding has declined.” Bullshit. Try this: People in the Bush administration cut funding for research into Gulf War Syndrome to the bone as soon as they took office. See that? Aren’t active verbs better?”
The story isn’t about who cut the funding or what the funding is. You want to rip on the media, fine. Seems like a good pastime, especially if you’re not a person responsible for filing on a daily (or hourly deadline). You want to write the story on who cut the funding and why? File a Freedom of Information Request and go nuts. I’m sure it’s out there and I’m sure you can back it up as you see fit.
I just want these guys fixed and acknowledged. Bush Sr. had two years, Clinton had EIGHT. Not like they ramped up the funding and said “Regardless of the cost, we’ve got to find an answer to this.” I’ve got family and friends who have served and most of them did it gladly but hated when things got politicized on their behalf.
Usually, I’m with you across the board, but this just ticked me off… Sorry…
better living thru chemistry!
I am hypersensitive to passive voice (a much-loved professor beat that into me early in my college career). I’ll paraphrase his mantra: Passive voice is lazy writing. It sucks the life out of your writing and renders it a rotting, dead octopus slowly oozing across your desk.
I’ll add my own corollary to that: passive voice in reporting is the laziest of lazy writing. When you see a reporter using passive voice, you can safely bet that this is either a) somebody too lazy to track down the subject or b) somebody actively covering the subject up.
I’m sorry, Doc, but this IS about who cut the funding. Because if you want to make certain that shit like this never gets done again, you hold the bastards accountable. Even if it’s only in print. Scumsuckers like the ones who sent soldiers into this kind of situation love to work in the shadows. You have to shine light on them to keep them at bay. If that means shining an equally bright light on the Clinton administration for not holding up their end, then so be it.
But the only way to fix and acknowlege this stuff is to let people know about it. CNN was either actively covering up the guys who need to be fixed, or they were too lazy to report it. Either way, CNN didn’t finish the job.
Dang, didn’t notice my info wasn’t there. The above was me.