[Peace-discuss] Misrepresenting veterans

[Carl G. Estabrook]

David--

What are the "more than three votes that IVAW takes exception with"?   
How many of them are votes against war funding bills that include  
veterans' benefits?

Tim quite properly votes against war funding bills, even when the  
House leadership "sweetens" them with benefits.

You don't mention whether you agree with my "objections and suspicions  
surrounding IAVA."  I should think that you would not have any trouble  
distinguishing their position from that of IVAW, and that you would  
make some effort to avoid confusion.

You knew that IAVA is a pro-war group because I told you so, in a way  
that was easy to check. (I would have thought that you would have  
checked it long before I mentioned it, if you were going to circulate  
their information.)

But you "stand by their attack," even knowing its nature and motive?  
The attack is certainly dishonest.

And the matter is not a "conflict of conscience"! It's a question of  
whether our Congressional representatives should vote for more war in  
the Mideast or not. I would just as quickly vote against a  
representative whose conscience told him to vote for killing as I  
would, against a representative who violated his conscience by voting  
for killing.

I would however join you in condemning votes by Johnson against  
veterans' benefits that resulted from his "pro-austerity agenda" and  
not from his anti-war agenda. Which votes are those?

I recently wrote the following to the News-Gazette regarding Rep.  
Johnson:

=======================
The two most important things the federal government does is kill  
people and transfer wealth from the majority to the rich.

The Obama administration has proved itself even more brutal and  
efficient at those tasks than its predecessor. It has expanded six  
wars in the Mideast and has conducted a good-cop/bad-cop charade on  
government spending with the Republicans to attack social supports.  
And the beneficiaries of Obama's policies are the tiny American  
economic elite, whose wealth has increased at an accelerating rate,  
even after the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

Our local member of Congress, Timothy Johnson, after voting for the  
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has announced publicly that he was  
wrong - and now votes consistently against any more money for war in  
the Mideast. And he has now commendably voted against Obama's  
mendacious debt deal.

Unfortunately, Johnson seems often to do the right deed for the wrong  
reason. He has for example repeated the debt and deficit malarkey  
peddled by both parties. The deficit is a chimera used to scare  
Americans into accepting the government's austerity program. Wealth is  
so concentrated in America that an emergency tax of 15% on investable  
assets over $1 million would make the deficit disappear  - and 99% of  
American would not be subject to the tax.

Nevertheless Johnson has voted correctly - against both the wars and  
the debt deal.  He should be supported for re-election against  
opponents who would not clearly do the same.
=========================

--CGE

On Nov 15, 2011, at 7:57 PM, David Amerson wrote:

> 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/e70a46f0/attachment.html>