[Peace-discuss] Misrepresenting veterans

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

Relying on the pro-war IAVA's "report card," IVAW wrote

 > CHAMPAIGN, IL - Representative Tim Johnson's website claims that he
 > has "paid special attention to the needs of Veterans," but he
 > received an "F" on his voting for veterans report card from Iraq and
 > Afghanistan Veterans of America. Over the last few legislative
 > sessions, Johnson has
 > ~Voted NO on giving education benefit's to children of fallen
 > troops: HR 2346 / Vote 348
 > ~Voted NO to Mortgage Rellef for Deployed Troops, Veterans, and the
 > Families of those who were killed in action: HR 836 / Vote 174
 > ~Voted NO to a mental health screening for troops returning home
 > from deployment: HR 2647 / Vote 770

Are you seriously suggesting that Rep. Johnson should have voted YES  
on the following bills?
~HR 2346 / Vote 348 (16 Jun 2009) = Supplemental Appropriations, FY  
2009 [Military Operation and Maintenance, Procurement, etc.]
~HR 2647 / Vote 770 (8 Oct 2009) = Department of Defense Authorization  
Act, FY 2010

I don't see how votes IN FAVOR of these war-funding measures are  
compatible with your announced commitment to "Immediate Withdrawal of  
Occupying Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan." (Although such votes were  
clearly what IAVA wished to encourage with its misleading critique.)

Rep. Johnson however does consistently vote against funding for war in  
the Mideast. --CGE


On Nov 15, 2011, 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
 >