[Peace-discuss] Misrepresenting veterans

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

David--

As I have mentioned to you several times, I am no advocate for Rep.  
Johnson, having once run against him for the office he now holds. I  
deplore his votes for austerity.

He is nevertheless one of the few consistent votes against war in the  
House of Representatives.

I note you avoid answering my questions: you condemn him for voting  
against war-funding bills.  Do you think he should have voted for them?

Johnson certainly should be asked why he voted for HR 1 on 19 Feb.  
2011; my suspicion is that he did so because it includes  
appropriations for "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food And Drug  
Administration, And Related Agencies" - matters of great interest in  
his district.  And he should be asked about his votes on matters of  
interest to veterans; in some cases if not in all his motive is quite  
clear: he's voting against money for war in the Mideast.

If you want to know the politics of "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of  
America," I suggest you read their statements and examine their board  
of directors. (I would think you would do so before quoting their  
tendentious "report card.")  You will find that they are not neo- 
conservatives as you suggest but right-wing ("Realist") Democrats;  
their position is that of the current administration, which was  
elected by pretending to be anti-war - "largely non-ideological."  Of  
course that was a lie - with his drone strikes, attacks in new  
countries, and the murder of American citizens, Obama has shown  
himself to be simply more brutal and efficient in killing people than  
his predecessor.

IAVA's board of directors includes several Wall Street investment  
bankers and the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign  
Relations, Les Gelb (whose name leads all the rest), a long-time  
Pentagon and State Department apparatchik who, during the 2011  
Egyptian protests against President Hosni Mubarak, was regarded as  
"the Egyptian dictator's freelance spokesman in America." (I assume  
that the Democrat-oriented IAVA was the source of a similar misleading  
attack on Rep. Johnson by his perennial opponent David Gill: Gill  
continues to avoid undue candor about his own position on the war.)

Leslie Gelb of the CFR and the "progressive" pro-war group National  
Security Network is also the central figure in another Astroturf (fake  
grass-roots) Democrat pro-war group, "VoteVets.org" - also well- 
funded, presumably with money from Democratic party backers like the  
late unlamented "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq." Founded in  
2006, VoteVets.org was an active participant in the successful effort  
by Democrats to co-opt the antiwar movement. They supported the  
expansion of the war: see their press release on the day of Obama's  
announcement of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan: <http://www.votevets.org/news/?id=0190 
 >. Their Board of Advisers has included war-supporters like Tammy  
Duckworth, whom Rahm Emanuel used to destroy an authentic anti-war  
Democrat in an IL congressional election in 2006; former Sen. Bob  
Kerry; Lawrence Korb of the Reagan DOD; et al. IAVA seems to be the  
same thing, with a slightly deeper cover.

Your defensiveness seems to me to have little to do with the question  
of what should be done to promote "Immediate Withdrawal of Occupying  
Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," which you assert you favor.   
Citizens from this area vote for four officers of the federal  
government - Rep. Johnson, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Clark, and Pres. Obama:  
three of them oppose "Immediate Withdrawal of Occupying Troops from  
Iraq and Afghanistan"; one supports it - and you have chosen him, not  
the others, to demonstrate against. I assumed that you were misled,  
given the source of the "report card" you quoted.

--CGE

On Nov 21, 2011, at 9:05 PM, David Amerson wrote:

> 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
> >
>