Votevets.org needs to "recruit" you to help support our military
I had the distinct honor and pleasure to join 40 of my fellow Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in Washington DC this week. We were brought together by Votevets.org to receive and carry out a mission: Be a voice for the thousands of 21st Century veterans. We received media and lobbying training and met with fantastic people to include former Gen. Wes Clark and Paul Begala. We then went to Capitol Hill to make our voices heard and ensure that our nation's security remains strong.
We wanted to explain to the Congress why the largest political organization of Iraq and Afghanistan vets supports the Webb-Hagel Amendment. For those who aren't familiar with the Amendment, what it would do is:
- if a unit or a member of a regular component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan, when their deployment ends they will have at least the same time at home before they are redeployed
- no unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within three years of their previous deployment
- in event of an operational emergency posing a vital threat to national security interests, the President may waive the amendment’s limitations by certifying to Congress that the deployment of the unit or member is necessary
We all have strong feelings about the Iraq war, especially those of us who were there. But this Amendment isn't even about that. It's about a common sense policy that ensures our force sustainability.
I was a logistics officer in the Army. When a unit returns from combat operations, it takes time and money to ensure that their equipment is "reset" (repair/replace/upgrade) so that they can be a combat operational unit when next called to deploy. In our current cycle of operations, there is not enough time to do this. If all combat operations ended tomorrow, it would take billions, if not trillions, of dollars and 5 - 10 years to "reset" all Army equipment to be a fully combat operational force. Obviously that's not going to happen, so AT THE VERY LEAST, we need the Webb-Hagel Amendment to ensure that we have time to reset everything from Strykers, M-1 Abrams tanks, HMMWVs, mortar tubes, night vision goggles, small arms weapons, communications equipment, etc.
On the personnel side, it breaks my heart when I listen to Army spouses. I'm a citizen of Fayetteville and a law student at Campbell University, I talk with them everyday. They don't experience the drama that the Lifetime Channel shows. No, unfortunately, their drama is something else entirely. Many of them are de facto single parents, with no family or support system nearby. Their spouses leave for 12 months in Afghanistan, come home for six months, and leave for Iraq for 15-18 months. What effect does this have on their children? On their marriages? On their mental health? Who is speaking up for these spouses??
For all these reasons and more, Webb-Hagel is needed to ensure our force sustainability. Even if every positive thing the Administration says is true (and we know it isn't), it is irresponsible to continue our operations without the proper time to reset personnel and equipment. Our national security is at stake. Our armed forces has a limit to the amount of abuse they can take.
Last time Webb-Hagel came up for a vote, 56 senators voted for it, including Republicans. I can think of two senators who could close that four vote gap. We need your help. Please contact our senators and ask them to vote for our military, vote for force sustainability, and vote for common sense policy.
To reach our senators:
Sen. Richard Burr: (202) 224-3154
Sen. Elizabeth Dole: 202) 224-6342
P.S. I visited Sen. Dole's office on Tues. and spoke with one of her staff. I couldn't get a "read" what they thought, but we know from recent statements that Sen. Dole just needs a little "help" to see that a vote for Webb-Hagel is a vote for our military.
- captsfufp's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
VoteVets.org is persona non grata
As long as they run ads in NC-03 supporting Congressman Walter B. Jones, Jr.
They've been made aware of Marshall Adame's candidacy and, yet, still support Jones, Jr.
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/brocklog/
What have YOU done today to elect a Democrat?
They support
A man who has done nothing to help the troops over one of their own?
"Keep the Faith"
Indeed.
They are running radio ads on local AM talk stations in support of Jones, Jr.
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/brocklog/
What have YOU done today to elect a Democrat?
And two others:
Can anybody drum up some voting history for any/all three to either back this up or pull the rug out?
I'll do some checking when I get home from work today.
It is one thing
To support Hagel, when no candidate in that race (as far as I know) has been in the military.
But to support Jones Jr when a Marine who spent time in Iraq, and has two sons who served on the ground there is in the race and is calling for a full withdrawal and greater efforts to protect the troops...well, I have a huge problem with this.
"Keep the Faith"
sorry Thomas
I wasn't able to find a contact at vote vets for you. I tried.
- - - - -
Learn More about Mr. Leslie Merritt, Toady Extraordinaire
NCDP Photos
Missing the Point....
At the risk of taking some heat, I must interject. I am a little no a lot dissappointed that this has turned into a discussion about Democrat v. Republicans, elections and politics. Partisan bickering is the reason our guys are still there right now. I like Marshall Adame. I think he is what our Congress needs. I would love to start a letter writing campaign to votevets on his behalf.
However what has happened here is exactly what makes me want to go crawl under a rock and cry for our nation. There are men and women there right now who will be in the sand for 18 months....18 months. This tour is probably not their first and if they have time left in it won't be their last. This bill and this original post is not about promoting a candidate in 2008 its about helping those soldiers right now. Our military families are being ripped apart at the seams and this bill is a step towards easing that pain. You find me a military spouse, who wants to talk about Democrats v Republicans while she fights to remind her kids who their Daddy is after 15 months and I'll show you a crazy person. VoteVets.org is non partisan. Taking care of our soldiers is non partisan.Our soldiers are doing 12, 15 and 18 month tours! If votevets.org, Webb and Hagel want to end that then we should support them in that effort. We need to stop looking at this war as an opportunity to "stick it to the Republicans" and just focus on doing the right thing. I encourage anyone to follow votevets lead and support this amendment.
With respect
It's not about "sticking it to Republicans". It's about pointing out to them that they are ignoring a candidate that shares their goals and values. I have to say that if Marshall was a Republican, and still espoused the good sense and values that he does, I would still support him.
No one here has said that they would not support Votevets.org. -- they've only said they were disappointed in their support of Walter Jones. And they're free to do that. That is not the same as saying they think that our troops should stay in Iraq forever, nor is it the same as saying that it's a partisan issue.
So take a deep breath, relax, and chill just a little. Our thoughts, our love, and our prayers are with all of the military families who are facing more right now than those civilians among us can ever imagine. We are passionate about this because we care about them. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't be posting instead of working.
Votevets is one of the best orgs out there, and they need to know about candidates like Marshall Adame, because he really is what they stand for. Really. No matter what party he's from.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I won't support VoteVets.
They support Congressman Walter B. "Freedom Fries" Jones, Jr. instead of Marshall Adame.
Let's remember that Congressman Jones, Jr. was one of the early and strong supporters for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Let's remember that Congressman Jones, Jr. was one of the fiercest proponents to politicize the occupation and then one of the earliest to jump ship. Let's remember that Congressman Jones, Jr. didn't retire from the military and didn't serve in Vietnam while in the Air National Guard. Let's remember that he promised to us, the citizens of North Carolina's 3rd Congressional District, that he'd serve only 6 terms in the U.S. House. Let's remember that Congressman Walter B. Jones, Jr. has made his entire political career on the coat-tails of the late (and great) Congressman Walter B. Jones, and that when his daddy's name failed to get him elected the first time, he switched teams during the Republican Revolution.
Then, let's remember Marshall Adame. Let's remember that Marshall served in the Marine Corps for more than 20 years. Let's remember that Marshall served in combat in Vietnam. Let's remember that Marshall served in the first Desert Storm. Let's remember that Marshall served in Operations DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. Let's remember that Marshall served in Iraq as a member of the Coalition Provisional Authority and at the State Department. Let's remember that Marshall has sponsored several Iraqi nationals that are in danger of murder at home to relocate to the United States. Let's remember that Marshall has two sons that've been to Iraq, one of whom wears a Purple Heart.
Who is more deserving of VoteVets support? Congressman Jones, Jr or Marshall Adame?
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/brocklog/
What have YOU done today to elect a Democrat?
well said
That is much better said than I could have done.
"Keep the Faith"
I wouldn't
It's easy to say we shouldn't be partisan, but the sad truth is, the reason we are still in Iraq is because of partisanship. Unless and until there's a working majority of Democrats in Congress - or the right Dem in the White House - nothing will change. I'd go so far as to say I'd take a pro-war Dem over an anti-war Republic in either House. Because what matters most is legislative control. Sad, but true.
I like VoteVets a lot, too. But they missed the boat on this one. They can thank Jones all they want for his support to end the war, but that doesn't mean they have to support him as Congressman in NC-3.
I know.
And I've got to say, I am coming from a philosophical view point. Fortunately - Marshall is a Democrat, and I can happily support him with out any compunctions. Also, please read my caveats
Yes, Partisanship got us there, and partisanship is keeping us there. Doesn't it follow that non-partisanship might be the antidote? I don't know. It's going to take Republicans crossing the aisle to do what is right for our troops. It's going to take Democrats standing up and doing what is right, no matter what compromises their leadership comes up with.
As for VoteVets - I honestly think it might be a case of them not being aware of Marshall, his candidacy, and who he stands for. If, once they know all about him, they continue to take the same stance, I will whole heartedly agree with you. Freedom Fries has the advantage of being the incumbent, and gets press coverage because he's flip-flopped on an issue. Marshall needs to get the coverage and visibility.
I'm not willing to write off VoteVets until I know they've got the information about Marshall. That's all I'm saying.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
support the webb hagel amendment
"No one here has said that they would not support Votevets.org."
"VoteVets.org is persona non grata. As long as they run ads in NC-03 supporting Congressman Walter B. Jones, Jr."
NEW VOTEVETS.ORG RADIO ADS COMMEND THREE REPUBLICANS
Major General (Ret.) John Batiste, former 1st Infantry Division commander in Iraq, life-long Republican, and advisor to VoteVets.org, is featured in a new radio ad campaign being launched today, that praises Senator Chuck Hagel and Representatives Walter Jones and Wayne Gilchrest for standing up for the troops.
These are the postings to which I was responding. I understand persona non grata to mean not welcome which would suggest that we not support them. The second posting is also a post which points out votevets support of Republicans. I take this as partisan. I don't question their right to engage in this dialogue I just don't think their work on Webb Hagel should be overlooked.I wish I could take a deep breath and relax but time is short and patience is a luxury my family no longer has.If my passion seemed like anger please know that it is just frustration and I don't question the dedication of anyone here.I am offering a different perspective on the discussion and calling it as I see it.
I support Marshall Adame and I would encourage anyone who does to write votevets and the DCCC and call attention to his candidacy.
I stand (or sit) corrected.
I suppose I misunderstood the depth of feeling of my fellows.
For what it's worth, here's the email I just sent.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
The reason I posted that,
is because I wanted to make readers of this blog aware that, if they felt inclined to donate to this organization, they could (unknowingly) be helping to subsidize radio advertizing for Republican candidates.
If that makes me a partisan politicker, then so be it. If the Republicans recover their majority in either the House or the Senate (or both), we're not going to get out of Iraq anytime soon.
Pro-war Dem v Anti War republican
"I'd go so far as to say I'd take a pro-war Dem over an anti-war Republic in either House. Because what matters most is legislative control. Sad, but true."
If a pro-war Dem votes in favor of the war how does their vote matter?
Control of the House
Control matters more than any individual vote. All you need to do is look at the NC House this past session. Without speaker Hackney, the progressive agenda in North Carolina would have been set back decades. It wasn't about specific votes on bills, it was about setting and controlling the agenda.
The same is true in Congress. Pro-war Dems wouldn't be given serious leadership positions in the House, and legislation wouldn't get to the floor that would allow their vote to matter all that much. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it is the way it is.
(NOTE: This of course isn't categorically true, more of a rule of thumb for me.)
In most cases, I'd be with you, A.
I'd go with a "pro-life" Dem as opposed to a "pro-choice" Rep., because that battle is going to be fought for years and years and years.
But when it comes to this war, I would go with a an anti-war candidate, no matter the party, opposed to a pro-war candidate. If someone had a good plan to bring our soldiers home, I don't think I'd care who they were or who they slept with, so to speak. Short sighted? Perhaps. But I'd rather deal with the consequences of that than have 8 more years of conflagration overseas.
This is another reason why I think we might do better with more than 2 parties.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi