[Peace-discuss] Misrepresenting veterans

[David Amerson]

Carl-

 As I mentioned today, IAVA's report card is useful as a metric of
veteran's issues. I am aware of your objections and suspicions surrounding
IAVA, but nonetheless, when constructing a 250 word letter to the editor
one has to exercise a degree of thrift. There are much more than three
votes that IVAW takes exception with. If what you say about IAVA is true,
then I would be weary of any product they produce. However, the methodology
for their "grading system" is not covert, they publish the exact bills the
Congressmen vote for and why, and only two of the ones included in the
metric are related to Defense Appropriations and could thus be subject to
the conflict in conscience you are suggesting. In fact, the third bill I
mention (HR 836 Vote 174), is not even included in IAVA's metric as it is
too recent, and deals solely with an amendment specifically targeting
veteran's mortgage relief.

I think it is unfair to claim that I "knew" about IAVA's "pro-war group"
status. That letter was written a week ago, at a time when the only
information I possessed about IAVA's "pro-war" bonafides were your stated
misgivings. Nonetheless, I stand by this "attack," for the reasons I stated
on your show: Johnson has thrown the baby out with the bath water. Instead
of being an advocate for veterans, Johnson has chosen to pursue a
conservative social agenda and a pro-austerity agenda. I wish that IVAW had
the internal resources
to create their own metric (as I have suggested to the national board),
however we did copious independent research on Johnson's voting record
prior to this action, and stand by using IAVA's metrics as a jumping off
point or short hand reference as it relates to veteran issues specifically.

This action was not conceived and calculated to unseat Johnson, so I don't
see how this hinders a withdrawal efforts. IVAW is merely attempting to
change the public narrative of what it means to support veterans. With
Johnson's *recent* anti-war votes, if he was at least able to consistently
vote for legislation that supports veterans and does not also perpetuate
our occupations overseas, I would have no objections to his record at all,
in fact I would even consider voting for him (although his pro-austerity
streak would be a hindrance). Not all demonstrations cast the target as
being 100% evil, during any media interviews we conducted, or speeches we
gave at the rally, we were quick to note how Johnson supports one tenet of
IVAW's mission statement. With a legislator like this, one who seems to be
a Jekkyl/Hyde type as to our specific mission, it is a fine line one walks
but I believe we conducted ourselves honestly and transparently. I also
believe that as a local resident I can apply civic pressure on a lawmaker
that, when it comes to these issues, is good but not yet good enough.

I am glad we are having this conversation, and I am grateful for being
allowed to discuss this on AWARE's show. However, I think you'll find that
we are merely having a disagreement about activist tactics, and are largely
still in the same camp. As such, I do not think it is helpful to this
dialogue to paint my actions as dishonest or shocking (after all, you knew
full well about our partial use of IAVA's metrics last week so I do not
know how anything written in that letter comes as a surprise).

-David


On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

> Mr. Amerson:
>
> I hadn't seen your letter in today's News-Gazette before your appearance
> on "AWARE on the Air."  I was shocked by its contents.
>
> You claim to favor the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan,
> as AWARE does, but you repeat without correction a tendentious attack on
> 15th district Congressman Tim Johnson, one of the few members of the House
> of Representatives (and one of the very few Republicans) to vote
> consistently against more money for the US war in the Greater Middle East.
>
> The attack comes not from the group that you claim to represent, Iraq
> Veterans against the War, but from another group, "Iraq and Afghanistan
> Veterans  of America." You assert, "Johnson's record on veteran's [sic]
> issues last year was so poor that he received an 'F' on his voting report
> card published by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America."
>
> You know (but do not mention) that IAVA is a pro-war group, and you know
> (but do not mention) that at least two of the three votes by Johnson that
> IAVA condemns were votes against war spending bills (including the Defense
> Authorization Act in the last Congress), which only incidentally included
> benefits for veterans.
>
> Can such a dishonest attack against a Congressman pledged to vote against
> the war, promote the withdrawal you claim to favor? It can only hinder the
> opposition to this war, without being much help to veterans.
>
> --C. G. Estabrook
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20111115/ea86401b/attachment-0001.html>