[I AM HAVING PROBLEMS POSTING HERE, SO BEAR WITH ME. And yes, I know I have spelling, punctuation errors etc. Unfortunately, I am having trouble fixing them. CURSE you whoever is on the other end of this blog admin nonsense!]<\/p>\n
Well, quite the little storm a brewing.<\/p>\n
Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA responds to my posts over at Blackfive.<\/a> I urge everyone to go read it.\u00a0 I’m all about the sunshine\/disinfectant thing, so, please, go read it.<\/p>\n I will go through it more tomorrow, but a few quick thoughts.\u00a0 First, I post under a pseudonym because I am a blogger.\u00a0 Everytime my name is attached to things, my personal musings are attributed to my employer, or I get lunatics setting up websites about me.\u00a0 One time I even had a dude appropriate my name and start posting all over Yahoo about how I like small boys.\u00a0 But, I am happy to disclose my identity to Paul, provided it doesn’t get spilled all over the intertubes and I have to go into cyber hiding again.<\/p>\n My parsing of the votes was me.\u00a0 Not anyone else, so I am responsible for that.\u00a0 With that as a base, read what Paul says, and look at what I wrote, then go look at the votes.\u00a0 I think I laid out a strong case for how Senators Vitter, Coburn and DeMint voted against the bills cited by IAVA for reasons completely unrelated to the reasons for which IAVA used the votes.\u00a0 Does being against a park in 90210 mean you oppose veterans?\u00a0 Not in my book.<\/p>\n I am well aware of all the work that IAVA does on Capitol Hill.\u00a0 I have met each and everyone of their lobbyists on MANY occasions.\u00a0 I do not challenge that advocacy.<\/p>\n Paul states:<\/p>\n At IAVA, we\u2019re proud of our work, and we don\u2019t let misguided attacks on the integrity of our organization go without being challenged.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As well you should be proud, and as well you should not let it go unchallenged.\u00a0 So, lets talk about that actual challenges I made, and not the ancillary discussions.\u00a0 My post was DIRECTLY in relation to the Scorecard itself.\u00a0 Not lobbying, not the absolutely admirable job on the GI Bill (which was to be addressed tomorrow) and not on how polite you are to those with questions.\u00a0 I confined my discussion to your scorecard, the apparent conflict of interest in having your founder also being a beneficiary of the vote selection, and use of DIA.\u00a0 So, let’s discuss those items.<\/p>\n This is the paragraph I take the most umbrage with:<\/p>\n Senators and Representatives are paid to go to Washington and represent the American people by sponsoring and voting on legislation.\u00a0And that\u2019s what we grade them on: actions, not rhetoric. Not their party or their status as a veteran, but their votes.\u00a0Duncan Hunter (an example cited with outrage by TSO) received a C<\/a> with good reason. Despite his honorable service, and that of his son, he was running for President and chose to miss 3 critical votes, one on protecting Iraqi interpreters, one on treating TBI and on one expanding veterans benefits. He also decided not to be a GI Bill co-sponsor, in contrast to several of his colleagues\u2014including dozens of Republicans ranging from Representative Peter King (NY)<\/a> to Senator Pete Domenici (NM)<\/a>. Let\u2019s face it–you aren\u2019t supportive of the troops just by virtue of being a veteran.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1) I cited Duncan Hunter as an example, and you point out he missed 3 “critical votes.”\u00a0 I contend that the Interpreter Bill, while very important, and which I do not downplay was anything but critical.\u00a0 It passed with only one vote against it.\u00a0 He could have thrown a backyard BBQ for 200 of his closest Congressional friends and it would have passed.\u00a0 Wouldn’t “critical” seem to indicate that his absence could have doomed the bill?\u00a0 The bill “treating TBI”, your vote #3 was passed unanimously, do you really believe that had Hunter been there he would have voted contrary to everyone else? Or do you think his absence was due to a well thought out plan to avoid voting on such a contentious issue that it got the votes of both Kucinich and Ron Paul, 2 guys who (outside War on Terror issues) likely could fight about whether water is wet?<\/p>\n 2) I don’t recall every saying you had to be a veteran to be supportive of the troops, nor do I for one second believe it.\u00a0 Chairman Bob Filner of the Veterans’ Affairs committee was a draft dodger by his own admission, and he has arguably been the best Chairman that committee has ever had in terms of advocating for veterans.\u00a0 Ascribing such a position to me is farcical.<\/p>\n Paul further states:<\/p>\n