This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: VoteVets

  • Did your head explode?

    Well, dicksmith says it did. He wrote a piece at VetsVoice about our little tiff with the VFW-PAC this week entitled “Wingnut Heads Explode When VFW Endorses War Criminal’s Opponent .”

    Of course, LTC Allen West is supposed to be the war criminal because he extracted critical intel from an enemy detainee using proven methods of instilling fear, namely firing a weapon while the detainee’s head was covered and the detainee wasn’t wearing Depends. I probably don’t need to say this, but dicksmith is a gigantic pussy.

    Anyway, this line is killer;

    So, it’s a well known fact that the PAC operated by Veterans of Foreign Wars doesn’t actually care about Vets. They care about scoring points for their own ideology…

    Dicksmith doesn’t even see the irony that someone from MoveOn.prg-supported VoteVets which is financed openly by the Soros Foundation says another organization slavishly follows it’s doctrine. Now, if the VFW-PAC was solely following it’s supposedly conservative doctrine, why was their list of approved candidates mostly Democrats, you dill hole?

    The issue that the VFW membership had with the PAC has nothing to do with doctrine – it has to do with the PAC’s utter incompetence. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support veterans like they support gun owners. There’s no way the PAC should be endorsing those boobs.

    Dicksmith rambles on;

    Now, I don’t know whether it’s driving them nuts because they love them some torture, or if it’s driving them nuts because the idea that VFW would endorse a Democrat is unacceptable, but heads or [sic] exploding over in the wingnutosphere as a result of VFW endorsing West’s opponent….

    Where it says “wingnutosphere” there’s a link to Blackfive – you know, that den of evil Republican assassins that meet nightly with John Boehner for their marching orders. Of course, they could have put a link to TAH there, but that’s what drew my fire in the first place while Beeker was still there and linked to TAH every time he wrote “far right nuts” or words to that effect. Dicksmith didn’t want to make that mistake a second time.

    Look, I’m not real comfortable with a Veterans organization endorsing non-Vets at all. If there is no Vet in the race or you don’t like the one in the race, just don’t endorse.

    He knows what he’s talking about – in the largest field ever of veterans running for office this year, VoteVets is supporting 10. All Democrats.

    In the last election, VoteVets gave us the sexual antics of Eric Masa – their support was given purely because he fit their profile – a vet and a Democrat.

  • VoteVets and reality

    If I researched and wrote like dicksmith over at VetVoice, you guys would tear me to pieces on a daily basis. Wait. Here’s good example; Dicksmith writes a piece entitled “Toomey Calls Troop Bonuses ‘Wasteful’“> it’s about Pat Toomey who opposes Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania for the seat that will be vacated by Arlen Specter in the Senate. Dicksmith accuses Toomey of belittling the importance of bonuses to our troops. This is how dicksmith characterizes the comment from Toomey;

    During a press conference where he was challenged for his vote against a $1,500 combat bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Toomey said he voted that way because paying troops who risk their lives for America is “wasteful” and undermined “fiscal irresponsibility.”

    Yeah, he actually said that.

    Well, no, he didn’t actually say exactly that. This is how PA2010.com described the press conference (which, by the way was back in July) and the events leading up to the statement (this is the same source that dicksmith used);

    The bonus was an amendment to a larger 2003 military appropriations bill that Toomey supported, and no other provisions were in that specific amendment.

    “Now there are times when some of these measures are [used] as an excuse to undermine the fiscal stability of our country,” Toomey said. “That’s very bad policy. And we shouldn’t hold military and veteran needs hostage to wasteful spending.”

    He didn’t say that bonuses were “fiscally irresponsible” – in fact if you search the page, the word “irresponsible” it doesn’t appear on the page, yet dicksmith put quotes around it as if Toomey said it. And even if he voted against it, it was an increase in spending not getting rid of bonuses all together.

    But you know who did want to do away with bonuses. VoteVets favorite rotting corpse – John Murtha, who has been called the soldier’s best friend. In December, 2008 Murtha said if we cut and run from Iraq we won’t need bonuses anymore;

    Murtha said bonuses were one area that could produce savings as forces are drawn down in Iraq. “If we draw down, we ought to be able to get rid of the bonuses,” he said.

    “Get rid of the bonuses”. See how I did that? I took something that Murtha actually said and then I put quotation marks around it. Surprisingly, that’s what the rest of the literate English-speaking world does, too.

    But, I never heard a peep out of the non-partisan VoteVets diarists…whoever they were back in those heady days before the Democrats disappointed us…again.

    Oh, and dicksmith actually used this line in his latest piece;

    Toomey’s position can only be described as “cut and run economics.”

    As opposed to dicksmith, Sestak and Murtha’s cut and run strategies, which actually costs lives and weakens our national security.

  • More MOVE Act violations head for court

    The Military and Overseas Voter Enforcement Act of 2009 is still causing trouble for some states and counties who can’t get out of the habit of screwing military members out of their votes according to the Military Voter Protection (MVP) Project. MVP has filed a lawsuit against Maryland for mailing out an incomplete ballot to at least one officer. Oddly enough, the ballot included only candidates for Federal office and none of the contentious elections for State office. (Fox News link)

    [Eric] Eversole says the DOJ’s lack of oversight in enforcing the MOVE Act could lead to the disenfranchisement of military voters.

    “DOJ decided Maryland could send out to only half a ballot, and the ballots they sent out did not satisfy the requirements,” he said. “It all comes back to this: From our perspective, they deserve to have that ballot sent to them and sent to them in a timely manner. We don’t think it should be half a ballot. You don’t meet your requirements for sending out half a ballot.”

    MVP sent a letter to the US Attorney General Eric Holder;

    On Monday, MVP Project sent a list of possible MOVE Act violations to Attorney General Eric Holder, claiming the act may have been violated in Connecticut, New Mexico, seven counties in Alabama, two counties in Arkansas, one county in California, one county in Indiana and two counties in Nevada.

    You can see the details of the violations listed in this letter at this .pdf.

    I’m surprised not at all, especially at Maryland’s behavior. Ass-munch, thief, liar, puppy-murderer, molester of kittens, sniffer of used diapers, Marty O’Malley is in the race for his political life and he’s sure to hamstring the opposition anyway he can.

    I have to ask; where the Hell is VoteVets? It’s right there in their name that they ought to be involved in this. OK, they’re not a VSO…but what else should this organization be involved in instead of some bullshit “Clean Energy” campaign for MoveOn.

  • VoteVets/Sestak stoop to dirty politics

    Joe Sestak must be hurting in the polls (I don’t believe in polls, so I don’t know) because he’s called out the scum sucking bottom-feeders of Vote Vets to do his dirty work. This is Jon Soltz’ idea of a good plan;

    As they go door-to-door, the veterans and military family members will leave behind blistering door hanger lit pieces, featuring pictures of Sestak’s challenger, Pat Toomey, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad side by side, and one that asks whether Pat Toomey puts Wall Street above our troops.


    What the Hell does Ahmadinejad have to do with Wall Street? and what the Hell does Pat Toomey have to do with Ahmadinejad? And if Ahmadinejad is such a big threat (and he is) why isn’t VoteVets lobbying for the destruction of Iran’s war-making capability?

    Imagine the national reaction to a Republican running the same type of ad with his Democrat opponent’s image next to that of bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, or Ay-hab Ay-rab. I don’t need to describe the resulting indignant posturing because VoteVets already showed us when Democrat Max Cleland complained to VoteVets about the ad that Saxby Chandliss ran against him;

    The ad has a tiny picture of bin Laden amongst others and Cleland’s picture doesn’t even appear at the same time. dicksmith wrote during the 2008 election;

    If you don’t know Max Cleland’s story, you probably think the disgusting part of that ad is equating the then-incumbent Senator with Osama bin Laden.But that is small potatoes compared to what is really going on here.

    I’m not a guy who is quick to anger. However, for the last six years the name Saxby Chambliss has caused my blood to boil because this is the worthless excuse for a human being that accused Max Cleland, who lost three limbs leading troops on the battlefield in Vietnam, of not having the courage to lead.

    Not only did Chickenhawk Saxby disrespect and disregard Max Cleland’s sacrifice

    It was a horrible thing when Republicans showed a picture of bin Laden in an ad that had to do with Max Cleland (who blew himself up with an errant grenade) but this VoteVets thing puts the Republican right in the same picture as Ahmadinejad.

    But we’re talking about the tiny tots at Vote Vets who think they’re being cute. I hope this stomps Sestak the last few inches that Toomey needs. i don’t know a thing about Toomey, but this dirty trick shit always backfires and I hope Soltz gets shit all over him.

  • The absolute nerve of Vote Vets

    I’m sure many of you remember TSO’s dismantling of VoteVets last year. He showed how disingenuous they are when dealing with an inexperienced public when using their ad campaigns to attack Republicans. The flak vest story was all about Republican candidates supposedly voted against giving the troops modern body armor. The vote that they cited in several campaigns in 2006 never had a thing to do with body armor, FactCheck.org confirmed this. The that little whiney bitch, Jon Soltz accused FactCheck of abandoning the troops.

    Well, here we are in 2010 and their tactics haven’t changed. dicksmith is over there claiming that Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform Smears Congressman for Supporting Vets .

    Here’s ATR’s ad. Does it even mention the troops?

    dicksmith wants us to look at the player screen for this single slide;

    dicksmith claims that the last entry, vote #330 on May 15, 2008, was a vote “for the troops” because it contained the new GI Bill.

    Here’s vote #330 from thomas.loc.gov;
    330 15-May H R 2642 On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 3 P Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

    Wanna know what was in it besides the new GI Bill? Again from thomas.loc.gov;

    Appropriations for FY2008 to the Department of Agriculture for the Foreign Agricultural Service for grants under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480) for emergency and nonemergency food assistance to foreign countries.

    Appropriations to the Department of Justice for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) general legal activities; (3) the U.S. Marshals Service; (4) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); (5) the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); (6) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and (7) the Federal Prison System.

    Appropriations for the Broadcasting Board of Governors for international broadcasting operations.

    Appropriations for the Economic Support Fund.

    Appropriations to the President for: (1) global health and child survival; (2) development assistance; (3) international disaster assistance; (4) USAID for operating expenses and for the Office of Inspector General; (5) the foreign military financing program; and (6) peacekeeping operations.

    Appropriations for: (1) the Bureau of the Census (Department of Commerce) for periodic censuses and programs; and (2) the federal prison system (Department of Justice) for salaries and expenses.

    Additional appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE) for science and defense environmental cleanup.

    Appropriations for: (1) Department of Labor state unemployment insurance and employment service operations; and (2) the Department of Health and Human Services for the National Institutes of Health.

    Appropriations for FY2008 for the Department of Agriculture for: (1) the Farm Service Agency’s Emergency Conservation Program; and (2) the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Emergency Watershed Protection Program.

    Need I go on? I can – there look to be dozens more “appropriations” for things that aren’t related to defense.

    Oh, yeah the troops are in there, way down at the bottom underneath all of that pork. I doubt anyone that had the intention to vote against higher taxes as Ben Chandler said would ever vote for this pork-laden turd. So I think Grover and his boys had every right to stick it to Chandler for lying to voters. Oh, yeah, dicksmith’s source for the bill? IAVA’s scorecard. Bedfellows.

    And thanks, dicksmith, for reminding us that the Veterans Affairs Department has yet to pay ALL vets on time for their new GI Bill benefits. Even though it’s going on it’s third semester. A good idea works.

  • That whole Prudential dust-up

    Sporkmaster wrote about the supposed “scam” that Prudential got caught up in while they were trying to pay out death benefits to widows of troops killed in the war against terror. I had a feeling that Prudential was just trying to do the best they could given the restrictions. They sent out a letter to several organizations that deal with soldiers this week.

    First i want to say that I don’t like Prudential even a little bit. I spent some time selling insurance products in the 90s and they were my largest competitor in the area where I worked. They didn’t do anything illegal, but they’d walk right up to the line to make a sale.

    Anyway, they took exception with all of the people who said they were cheating widows out of the death benefits from SGLI. One of whom was dicksmith who is always trying to pin something on Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney regardless if there’s any real evidence or if they even understand the issue. So dicksmith went off half-cocked;

    The scam works like this: instead of sending the family the money, the banks used to distribute the funds (in the case of SGLI, Prudential and Metlife) send the family a “checkbook” and a notice that for the convenience of the family the money has been placed in an interest bearing account from which the “checkbook” will draw funds.

    Only the “interest bearing account” is not an FDIC insured checking account, as was recently discovered by Cindy Lohman after her son was killed in Afghanistan:

    dicksmiths and VoteVets candidate Patrick Murphy jumped on the populist theme to condemn Prudential while dicksmith furiously scribbled a petition so VoteVets could fart into the wind and look like they care about veterans without actually doing anything meaningful.

    Pru writes;

    Prudential said some media reports that have noted Alliance Accounts are not federally insured have failed to mention that the accounts are backed by Prudential, and by state guaranty funds.

    Yeah, insurance is one of the things that the Federal government still allow States to regulate…for now. That’s why the accounts aren’t insured by FDIC, some investments are insured by SIPC but generally insurance products are protected by States.

    General Accounts like the Alliance Account are required to have cash on hand every day to pay every single account. But because of the restrictions on the company, expenses are fairly high in the account.

    Pru says they informed all of the beneficiaries of this stuff when they sent the checkbooks. I don’t doubt that at all – I remember all of the disclosure documents I had to hand to my clients and the mandatory explanations about every product I sold. Like I said, Pru may have walked up to the line but I’m sure they didn’t cross that line and do anything illegal.

  • VoteVets want illegal immigrants to commit suicide

    Hey, I can put two unrelated subjects together and make stuff up, too.

    dicksmith tried to put round pegs in square holes by explaining why immigration reform belongs in the Defense Authorization Bill;

    Currently, these undocumented immigrants do not have the ability to serve in the Armed Forces. Again, these are American high school graduates who came here as minors, brought by their parents and often have no memory of their home country. They did not willingly violate the laws of the United States, and are Americans in all but paperwork. For those who wish to serve, the DREAM Act would allow them them that opportunity. You see, the DREAM act doesn’t just give these immigrants a pass. It only gives them legal resident status for six years, in which time they must obtain a degree of high education or serve in the United States Armed Forces.

    Clearly, the Armed Forces is the better option.

    dicksmith has been on-and-on about the suicide rate in the military and despite actual math and facts declares that military service causes military members to kill themselves. So I can extrapolate that to mean that VoteVets is upset that more illegal immigrants of military age aren’t committing suicide. See how easy it is to be a frontpager at VoteVets?

    dicksmith continues;

    This isn’t a partisan issue, or one of pandering for votes. The military wants the DREAM Act passed.

    When VoteVets declares that something isn’t partisan or pandering, put your money on partisan and pandering.

    I’d like to know how he knows that the entire military wants the immigration reform passed. He quotes a “Strategic Goals” paper which also says, besides the desire for the DREAM Act, they’d like to recruit from previously medically restricted members of the population. It sounds like the Pentagon is taking cues from their political masters by endorsing their policies. But to dicksmith that means the whole military is ready to help criminals join the military.

    This is exactly like VoteVets multi-million-dollar support of the Energy bill. Everything is related to the military, if you pay Jon Soltz enough money.

  • VoteVets partisanship noticed in the media

    Someone sent me this link to the Seattle Weekly in which someone besides TAH has noticed that VoteVets isn’t as partisan as they let on.

    Five members of Vote Vets, a political group that backs candidates who have served in the military, stood behind a podium in a Seattle Center conference room to tell an audience of one (yours truly) that while Patty Murray has been pushing vet-backed bills in DC, Dino Rossi’s record on the subject is “overwhelmingly negative.”

    But that’s not true. From the time Rossi entered the State Senate in 1997 to his exit at the end of 2003, there isn’t a single instance of him ever voting against a bill for vets.

    Hegdahl says the group is officially non-partisan though so far this year, every endorsed candidate for Congress is a Democrat and last year only 8 percent of the $172,000 donated by by the PAC to various candidates went to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Yikes! I guess being uber-partisan while claiming to be neutral in politics only lasts as long as there’s a Republican in the White House. And that may be why VoteVets representatives are talking to an empty room these days;