[Peace-discuss] Misrepresenting veterans

Mon Nov 21 21:05:04 CST 2011

Carl-

 Since you are clearly such a knowledgeable advocate for Rep.Johnson, maybe
you can answer me some questions.

Why did Johnson vote *FOR* this year's DOD appropriations bill? It
continues military funding for the wars, and included sweeping austerity
provisions, such as cancelling federal grants for housing for homeless vets?
 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-147

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x253217436/House-slashes-funding-for-homeless-veterans-project-in-Jewett-City#axzz1eJAYKjd3

Why did Johnson vote AGAINST an amendment that would have allowed Deployed
Troops, Veterans, and the Families of those who were killed in action from
losing their mortgage repayment assistance?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:15:./temp/~r112qwcFMU:e175483:

 Also, could you please point me to reputable sources that detail IAVA as a
"pro-war" group? Forgive me for not taking your word for it, but everything
I find about IAVA points to it being largely non-ideological. While it has
several large donors, I am not yet convinced that this is not a purely
vanilla special interest group. Donations do not equal co-opting, or else I
guess we can call the USO and the Wounded Warrior Projects "pro-war" as
well. I did find this article on IAVA's website though, calling for
Rumsfeld to be removed back in 2006. http://iava.org/node/1529  I guess
this is just a brief interlude from their neo-conservatism, perhaps?

Carl, I feel like I have been quite gracious towards you. It is quite a
disconcerting feeling to counsel someone older and more experienced than I
about constructive dialogue, but I can sense this conversation devolving.
If your intention is to paint me as dishonest or some kind of Democrat
mole, then so be it. I am confident enough in my reputation among the local
activist community that I can suffer such slings.

But if it is so easy for you to call me "dishonest;" all the while
expecting me to believe your unsourced criticisms of IAVA, your unfounded
complaints against IVAW, your bizarre affirmation of Johnson's voting
record; or if your intention is to paint the local IVAW chapter as co-opted
or distrustful, then I think we should end our correspondence. I am
interested in doing my part to effect change on these issues, and I welcome
constructive critiques. But if this is simply going to be a platform for
you to grandstand to listservs or to be a tireless advocate for some
politician that, on the balance, is doing much more harm than good to our
community, then count me out. I am simply too busy.

-David

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:01 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20111121/fae2fa34/attachment-0001.html>