Supporting The Troops (political)

[Belegon]

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have today released their annual "Report Cards" on the House and Senate. Some of you may be familiar with this idea of giving members of Congress a letter grade based on their voting records and sponsorship of legislation that supports various organizations.

In today's political climate, I consider this organization's grade to be one of those that makes a difference. To me, it has to do with the old value of actions speaking louder than words. Or as John McCain has recently called the concept, not only "talking the talk, but walking the walk."

The results are not surprising to me. But I think that they should be. It saddens me that I am not surprised.

For review, let me point out that the McCain campaign has repeatedly attacked Barack Obama as not supporting the troops. Their attacks have ranged from negative ads released after Obama's trip to Germany to questioning his voting record in both debates to comparing the number of trips he took to Iowa with those he took to Iraq.
John McCain also goes to great lengths to remind everyone of his experience as a POW.

It's something that is one of the great disconnects with John McCain. In my experience, and based on what I read in the experience of most others, the great majority of our veteran's are reluctant to speak about their own service. My father is very proud of his service, as evidenced by his Vietnam Vet bumper sticker and photos of his friends on the wall above his computer. Yet he rarely mentions it, and to actually get him to speak about that time in more than a passing fashion requires emotional trauma.

The IAVA proudly gave out 150 perfect scores this year. That shows the nation's commitment to our troops, even in a very unpopular war. We should all be proud. Unfortunately, they also gave out 9 D's or F's.

Anyway, to the grades of the presidential candidates. Largely due to his absences while on the campaign trail, Barack Obama receives a B. I would greatly prefer that to be otherwise, knowing that it is a subject we both consider of great import, but there it is. Not the top grade, but respectable.

John McCain gets a D.

Let me repeat that. John McCain received a D. Yes, his large number of absences affect his grade. But they also affected Barack Obama, yet he got a B.

Also, if you go to the website of the IAVA and download the full document of their 2008 Report Card, you will notice that while they do not take a politician's military service into the grading, they do notate that service by placing a star next to their name.

Of all the Senators listed, only one man has that honorable star next to the dishonor of a D or an F. John McCain.

Way to "walk the walk" there, John.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Of all the Senators listed, only one man has that honorable star next to the dishonor of a D or an F. John McCain.

Way to "walk the walk" there, John.

That's horrifying.

 

[3113]

Checked out the "A" and "D" list of Senators...whadda know? Both Senators for that blue-liberal-fruit-and-nuts state (California) got "A's"! Go Boxer and Feinstein!

Maybe there's a link between supporting the troops and gay marriage?

 

[rgraham666]

Checked out the "A" and "D" list of Senators...whadda know? Both Senators for that blue-liberal-fruit-and-nuts state (California) got "A's"! Go Boxer and Feinstein!

Maybe there's a link between supporting the troops and gay marriage?

Now there's a thought that will make a lot of heads explode.

 

[shereads]

John McCain gets a D.

Bump.

 

[Belegon]

Bumping myself.

Being a veteran and supporting veteran's are not the same thing.

 

[3113]

John McCain gets a D.

Bump.

But at least he wasn't paling around with Aryers

 

[oggbashan]

The UK's parliamentary parties have an unwritten agreement:

When our troops are fighting they are supported by all parties.

The conduct of the war can be criticised, the political objectives can be criticised but the fighting troops cannot be criticised.

The UK has been in shooting wars and police actions continuously since 1900 and before. 1966 (I think -subject to check) was the only year in the 20th Century that a British service person didn't die in action.

Our High Court has ordered that Gurkhas who fought for the British before 1997 should be allowed to settle in the UK. That was the exception that the Government tried to defend and they were very unpopular even among their own supporters because of that defence.

Our population is not as demonstrative about supporting our troops as US citizens can be but the mood is changing. A local publican banned troops in uniform and then had to change his mind because everyone else stayed away as a protest. A local march-past by the Territorial Army had to have Police controlling the enthusiastic crowds.

Og

 

[impressive]

Maybe there's a link between supporting the troops and gay marriage?

. .

 

[Lee Chambers]

Interesting stuff. I checked my own area for grades. One of my reps had an F and one had an A+. The rest were got a B.

 

[impressive]

Interesting stuff. I checked my own area for grades. One of my reps had an F and one had an A+. The rest were got a B.

My representatives got A+/A/A+ (Dem/Rep/Dem, respectively) and my senators (both Dem) had A/A+

Only one of those five had an asterisk indicating military service. Hrm, I guess there really ARE ways to support the troops without being IN the military. Go figure.

 

[Lee Chambers]

My representatives got A+/A/A+ (Dem/Rep/Dem, respectively) and my senators (both Dem) had A/A+

Only one of those five had an asterisk indicating military service. Hrm, I guess there really ARE ways to support the troops without being IN the military. Go figure.

I like that you can see which votes affected their grades and a detailed explanation of what those votes were over.

My Rep who got an F voted against a number of things, including the latest additions to Veterans Benefits, the new GI bill, homes for heroes and protection for Iraqi allies. He was a Republican. The one who got that A+ was a Democrat and the rest were Republicans as well.

It certainly gives you a clearer picture on where they stand when voting time comes around.

 

[DesertPirate]

Of course it doesn't list all the "extra crap" added on to those bills that can cause a vote against.

Maybe they need to ensure that all amendments and earmarks actually pertain to the original bill?

 

[shereads]

The UK's parliamentary parties have an unwritten agreement:

When our troops are fighting they are supported by all parties.

The conduct of the war can be criticised, the political objectives can be criticised but the fighting troops cannot be criticised.

The UK has been in shooting wars and police actions continuously since 1900 and before. 1966 (I think -subject to check) was the only year in the 20th Century that a British service person didn't die in action.

Our High Court has ordered that Gurkhas who fought for the British before 1997 should be allowed to settle in the UK. That was the exception that the Government tried to defend and they were very unpopular even among their own supporters because of that defence.

Our population is not as demonstrative about supporting our troops as US citizens can be but the mood is changing. A local publican banned troops in uniform and then had to change his mind because everyone else stayed away as a protest. A local march-past by the Territorial Army had to have Police controlling the enthusiastic crowds.

Og

I suspect that Americans who were around during Vietnam carry a lot of guilt around - as we should - for the way returning soldiers were treated.

 

[Belegon]

Of course it doesn't list all the "extra crap" added on to those bills that can cause a vote against.

Maybe they need to ensure that all amendments and earmarks actually pertain to the original bill?

Maybe you need to go to the website of the group and read who they are and what they stand for and how they grade?

Maybe you need to ask why 150 members of Congress from BOTH parties got such great scores?


If they had not published the results for EVERYONE, then perhaps your approach would have merit. But the group themselves did NOTHING to single out the presidential candidates.

This "Report Card" isn't a smear against McCain. They do nothing to point him out in any way. I did that.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Nice to see MI senators get A+'s and none of the House reps get lower than a B.

 

[DesertPirate]

Maybe you need to go to the website of the group and read who they are and what they stand for and how they grade?

Maybe you need to ask why 150 members of Congress from BOTH parties got such great scores?


If they had not published the results for EVERYONE, then perhaps your approach would have merit. But the group themselves did NOTHING to single out the presidential candidates.

This "Report Card" isn't a smear against McCain. They do nothing to point him out in any way. I did that.

My comment still holds, how much extraneous crap got added to the bill to make it unpallatable? Happens every day in Washington. That is why I wish they had a rule that all add-ons actually had to pertain to the original bill.
Those supporting it probably had their own pork added or owed a favor to someone. The "Thundering Herd Of Dumbass" is so bad now that the original bill is often the smallest cost of what gets passed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My comment still holds, how much extraneous crap got added to the bill to make it unpallatable?

You can answer this question yourself, with a little research.
or, you can indulge yourself in suppositions while complaining about everyone else's worldview;

Those supporting it probably had their own pork added or owed a favor to someone.

No one expects anything in particular from you, after all.

 

[sr71plt]

I guess my question is what constitutes "supporting the troops"?

Putting them--and maintaining them--in harm's way with fuzzy goals, incomplete planning, insufficient euipment (so that their families have to take up collections to get them body armor). Is that supporting the troops?

Making a standing army out of folks who signed up for close-to-home national guard duty and jerking them out of the economic structure their families and society as a whole relies on and sending them abroad--and then involuntarily extending the deployment time they had signed up for. Is that supporting the troops?

Keeping them there just because your politics says you (the "You" who have not gone to the war yourself) have to be able to say you came home in victory--no matter how improperly you got into the war in the first place and no matter how hollow victory is and no matter how many body bags it will take. Is that supporting the troops?

Bringing them home, maimed, to VA hospitals that are a disgrace. Is that supporting the troops?

Sending them out onto the street as homeless--their emotional damage from being in war not treated--because they can't find jobs in an economy that the war has destroyed. Is that supporting the troops?

When I call for closing the Iraq debacle down and bringing the soldiers home with the bare number of new casualties as is possible, I hold that I am supporting the troops. When the Bush supporters wrap themselves in the "supporting the troops" flag, I want to puke.

(And, no, I didn't serve in the Service, although I come from a line of Army generals. But I served in war zones--without the fig leaf of Geneva Convention protection--and served where other people's wars were going on (and where the bullets that were flying didn't care where they hit). I faced having one bus to try to stuff as many Palestinians from a refugee camp in that I could and drive them away, knowing the camp was going to be shelled the next day. I served on a high enough scale in the Middle East to make Osama bin Laden's hit list--and when you've made something like that, you certainly feel every ounce of being involved in war. And I'm a graduate of the U.S. Army War College--and worked faced to face with the people who have to do the tough work on both going to war and trying to stay out of them.)

True support for troops is finding solutions that don't put their boots on the ground in foreign hostile environments at all. It certainly isn't keeping them in place in an ill-conceived and dismally executed wrong-place vanity war.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

I guess my question is what constitutes "supporting the troops"?

Putting them--and maintaining them--in harm's way with fuzzy goals, incomplete planning, insufficient euipment (so that their families have to take up collections to get them body armor). Is that supporting the troops?

Making a standing army out of folks who signed up for close-to-home national guard duty and jerking them out of the economic structure their families and society as a whole relies on and sending them abroad--and then involuntarily extending the deployment time they had signed up for. Is that supporting the troops?

Keeping them there just because your politics says you (the "You" who have not gone to the war yourself) have to be able to say you came home in victory--no matter how improperly you got into the war in the first place and no matter how hollow victory is and no matter how many body bags it will take. Is that supporting the troops?

Bringing them home, maimed, to VA hospitals that are a disgrace. Is that supporting the troops?

Sending them out onto the street as homeless--their emotional damage from being in war not treated--because they can't find jobs in an economy that the war has destroyed. Is that supporting the troops?

When I call for closing the Iraq debacle down and bringing the soldiers home with the bare number of new casualties as is possible, I hold that I am supporting the troops. When the Bush supporters wrap themselves in the "supporting the troops" flag, I want to puke.

(And, no, I didn't serve in the Service, although I come from a line of Army generals. But I served in war zones--without the fig leaf of Geneva Convention protection--and served where other people's wars were going on (and where the bullets that were flying didn't care where they hit). I faced having one bus to try to stuff as many Palestinians from a refugee camp in that I could and drive them away, knowing the camp was going to be shelled the next day. I served on a high enough scale in the Middle East to make Osama bin Laden's hit list--and when you've made something like that, you certainly feel every ounce of being involved in war. And I'm a graduate of the U.S. Army War College--and worked faced to face with the people who have to do the tough work on both going to war and trying to stay out of them.)

True support for troops is finding solutions that don't put their boots on the ground in foreign hostile environments at all. It certainly isn't keeping them in place in an ill-conceived and dismally executed wrong-place vanity war.

"What constitutes "supporting the troops"? I'll tell you. I can because I WAS one of those troops.

It's simple - make up you're f**king minds! Either get the hell out of the way and let the military do it's job with out all the GD political handcuffs or bring every GD one of them home. They pulled the same shit in Vietnam. Men die taking a hill the bureaucrats negotiate it back. then they are told to take the same GD hill again and MORE good men die. F**K THAT. Either surge the living shit out of the troop levels and WIN the damn thing or say screw it and come home - to stay and protect our own damn country. THAT is supporting your troops!

 

[Lee Chambers]

"What constitutes "supporting the troops"? I'll tell you. I can because I WAS one of those troops.

It's simple - make up you're f**king minds! Either get the hell out of the way and let the military do it's job with out all the GD political handcuffs or bring every GD one of them home. They pulled the same shit in Vietman. Men die taking a hill the buerocrats negotiate it back. then they are told to take the same GD hill again and MORE good men die. F**K THAT. Either surge the living shit out of the troop levels and WIN the damn thing or say screw it and come home - to stay and protect our own damn country. THAY is supporting your troops!

Sounds reasonable to me. But then I'm not a politician.

 

[sr71plt]

"What constitutes "supporting the troops"? I'll tell you. I can because I WAS one of those troops.

It's simple - make up you're f**king minds! Either get the hell out of the way and let the military do it's job with out all the GD political handcuffs or bring every GD one of them home. They pulled the same shit in Vietnam. Men die taking a hill the bureaucrats negotiate it back. then they are told to take the same GD hill again and MORE good men die. F**K THAT. Either surge the living shit out of the troop levels and WIN the damn thing or say screw it and come home - to stay and protect our own damn country. THAT is supporting your troops!

I can see that this is the view from the trenches. But you can't really see all that much from the trenches. Taking the "GD political handcuffs" off and bombing the shit out of everything in sight has never worked out all that well. Yet another case of the simplistic view not really being the best one. And yet another reason why our system keeps the military under civilian control.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

I can see that this is the view from the trenches. But you can't really see all that much from the trenches. Taking the "GD political handcuffs" off and has never worked out all that well. Yet another case of the simplistic view not really being the best one. And yet another reason why our system keeps the military under civilian control.

Whoo! You're a slick one there, sweetness. You just slid all them nice words right into my mouth. BTW, the view from the trenches is a damn sight clearer than it is looking down from your ivory tower there, boyo.

I never said, "bombing the shit out of everything in sight" was the solution. You will not win in Iraq or Afghanistan with bombing. It takes troops on the ground to take and HOLD the country so that the people can experience freedom for a bit and then make up their minds without pressure from the insurgents. The only other alternative is say "pack your shit, you boys and girls are going home to stay!"

You seem to be a sarcastic kind of fellow and I'd guess you can wrap all kinds of arguments up in fancy words much better than I ever will be able to. But I will tell you one thing there, Sunshine, the mess we are currently in is caused EXCLUSIVELY by that "civilian control" micromanagement you seem so proud of. That would be just fine if the "civilian control" would stop playing politics with men's lives. THEY are the problem not the damn solution, bucko!

 

[DesertPirate]

You can answer this question yourself, with a little research.
or, you can indulge yourself in suppositions while complaining about everyone else's worldview;

No one expects anything in particular from you, after all.

Yet this is exactly what is expected from you.
Every bill going through Congress becomes unrecognisable due the crap stuck on at the end. Some emerge with crap added that has no relation to the bill and costs 3 times what the original would. That is the kind of thing that needs to voted down or a veto by the President. Don't care what it was or who authored it. That is the only way to control of Congressional spending. Since they write all the bills this is more important than the President who signs them.

 

[sr71plt]

Whoo! You're a slick one there, sweetness. You just slid all them nice words right into my mouth. BTW, the view from the trenches is a damn sight clearer than it is looking down from your ivory tower there, boyo.

I never said, "bombing the shit out of everything in sight" was the solution. You will not win in Iraq or Afghanistan with bombing. It takes troops on the ground to take and HOLD the country so that the people can experience freedom for a bit and then make up their minds without pressure from the insurgents. The only other alternative is say "pack your shit, you boys and girls are going home to stay!"

You seem to be a sarcastic kind of fellow and I'd guess you can wrap all kinds of arguments up in fancy words much better than I ever will be able to. But I will tell you one thing there, Sunshine, the mess we are currently in is caused EXCLUSIVELY by that "civilian control" micromanagement you seem so proud of. That would be just fine if the "civilian control" would stop playing politics with men's lives. THEY are the problem not the damn solution, bucko!

Nope, sorry. The view of the battlefield and beyond is not clear from the trenches. Sorry, that's just wrong.

And from your one-note samba posting (as well as what you say), it's quite evident that you didn't really read my posting.

Simplistic thought isn't going to get us anywhere.