[Peace-discuss] Misrepresenting veterans

["E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"]

I would guess that Dr.Gill's lack of "undue candor" is
quite likely due to the probability that duly using candor
would prove to be his undoing, no can do.

On 11/22/11 12:54, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
> 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
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>