For anyone under the mistaken impression that IVAW and VoteVets are Veterans Organizations
From House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner comes this via email:
Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, with both Democratic and Republican Members of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in attendance, Chairman Bob Filner held a meeting with 40 veterans service organizations to discuss priorities for the second session of the 111th Congress.
“Today’s roundtable marks the second time during the 111th Congress that this Committee has met with veterans’ advocates to discuss the important issues facing our Nation’s veterans and plan how best to solve these problems,” said Chairman Filner. “The purpose of today’s meeting is to build upon the successes of the first session and collaborate on how we can better serve our veterans and wounded warriors going forward.”
Just want to first thank the Chairman for having the organizations in to discuss the issues facing veterans. More importantly, I wanted to show you the list of 40 Veterans Service Organizations that were in attendance. You know how IVAW and VoteVets claim to represent veterans on Capitol Hill? Well, I would love for one of them to explain why these organizations were invited and they were not. If you think VoteVets and IVAW are representing you on the Hill, you should ask them when and where they are doing so. VoteVets is up there right now advocating closing Gitmo and bringing those terrorists into the states, but they were apparently too busy to go to a meeting to discuss issues facing our returning brothers and sisters.
After the fold, the list of 40 organizations that *ARE* looking out for you and yours.
Complete List of Participants
1. Mike Dunn, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Force Association
2. John R. “Doc” McCauslin, Chief Executive Officer, Air Force Sergeants Association
3. Les Jackson, Executive Director, American Ex-Prisoners of War
4. Steve Robertson, Director, National Legislative Commission, The American Legion
5. Ray Kelley, National Legislative Director, AMVETS
6. Ike Puzon, Director of Legislation, Association of the U.S. Navy
7. John Lopez, Chairman, Association for Service Disabled Veterans
8. Tom Zampieri, Director of Government Relations, Blinded Veterans Association
9. Ray Williams, National Service Officer, Catholic War Veterans
10. Joe Violante, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
11. Daryl Corley, President – DC Chapter, Elite Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business Network
12. Thomas Banzul, General Counsel, Empowering Veterans
13. Michael P. Cline, Executive Director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard
14. Joseph L. Barnes, National Executive Director, Fleet Reserve Association
15. Vivianne C. Wersel, Au.D., Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America
16. Thomas Tarantino, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
17. Robert Nakamoto, President, Japanese American Veterans Association
18. Herb Rosenbleeth, National Executive Director, Jewish War Veterans
19. Bob Norton, Deputy Director Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America
20. Jim Richards, Assistant Service Director, Military Order of the Purple Heart
21. Don Loudner, National Commander, National American Indian Veterans, Inc.
22. Joe Wynn, Legislative Liaison, National Association for Black Veterans
23. Rick Jones, Legislative Director/PAC, National Association for Uniformed Services
24. John Driscoll, President and Chief Executive Officer, Natl. Coalition for Homeless Veterans
25. Pete Duffy, Deputy Director of Legislation, National Guard Association
26. Barbara Cohoon, Deputy Director of Government Relations, National Military Family Association
27. Ronald B. Abrams, Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services Program
28. Richard Schneider, Exec. Dir. for Government Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association
29. Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America
30. Marshall Hanson, Legislative and Naval Services Director, Reserve Officers Association
31. Brian Hawthorne, Legislative Director, Student Veterans of America
32. Amy Fairweather, Policy Director, Swords to Plowshares
33. Deirdre Parke Holleman, Executive Director, The Retired Enlisted Association
34. Matt Cary, Executive Director/Past President, Veterans and Military Families for Progress
35. Paul Sullivan, Executive Director, Veterans for Common Sense
36. Eric A. Hilleman, National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars
37. Donald D. Overton, Jr., Executive Director, Veterans of Modern Warfare
38. Leonard J. Selfon, J.D., CAE, Senior Vice-President, VetsFirst
39. John Rowan, National President, Vietnam Veterans of America
40. Ralph Ibson, Senior Fellow for Health Policy, Wounded Warrior Project
Category: Iraq Veterans Against the War
Gee, I see the Legion is there. Imagine that, my dues ARE working for me……….. 🙂
As is the VFW.
To their credit, so is IAVA. Might not always agree with them, and my experience with Mr Tarantino was not a good one, but I would never argue that they aren’t at least TRYING to affect positive change.
I noticed that, also, TSO. I have made my feelings about IVAW clear many times, so I won’t go into that, again. Vote Vets is a PAC, not a Veterans org. So, they were rightfully ignored for this meeting.
It’s nice to see Disabled America Veterans there! Why isn’t Vets For Freedom listed? I also don’t see Veterans For Peace (big surprise). But shouldn’t the title be revised? “For those who think IVAW, VV, VFP, or VFF are Veterans Organizations” – of course that could get pretty long.
I wonder if the phony general with the phony medals from the VFW showed up? http://www.military.com/news/article/phony-general-admits-to-phony-medals.html?col=1186032310810&ESRC=topstories.RSS
Nothing like spending a year in jail for being stupid…
Vets For Freedom is not listed because their mandate is not focused on veterans issues it is National Security. From the VFF website:
Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq.
Ergo, nothing that appears before the veterans affairs committee.
Come to think of it, there are several great organizations that do not appear in this list. Like Soldier’s Angels. They are not a Veteran Service Organization, but they definitely do a lot to help our military.
TSO,
Do IVAW or VoteVets have anything on their websites that says they are a VSO? I wouldn’t think they have anything that would appear before the committee either?
IVAW’s 3rd Plank:
Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.
(That falls under the VA Committee) http://ivaw.org/about
As for VoteVets:
VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families.
The “advocacy on behalf of veterans” and their repeated work on the GI Bill (or at least their claiming to work on the GI Bill) would fall under the HVAC and SVAC.
Soldier’s Angels should have been there, and I would argue WLF as well. I don’t believe that WLF has a DC presence, and SA I think tries to stay out of politics as much as possible. They are more a charity group than an advocacy group.
Right, I see your point. But nowhere do they claim that they’re a VSO (either group). IVAW can make the claim you listed above because they do advocate for those benefits, albeit not in front of a congressional committee. And as this article points out, VV currently has veterans on the Hill right now talking to congressmen (albeit not the committee and not about veterans benefits). And they did send veterans who sat down personally with congressmen regarding the GI Bill.
Here is the point I’m trying to make. The basic premise of this article is the idea that if you claim to represent veterans but are not on this list you are full of shit. That simply is not the case. There are two groups on this list that I am a member of (American Legion and DAV). But I have worked with several veterans groups that are not on this list. All of the ones that I have worked with do excellent work for vets, but they are not VSO’s.
Let me ask this to get a better grasp on what you are saying, are the other groups you have worked with engaged in advocacy or are they charitable?
What I was intending as the basic premise of this is that organizations which claim to be advocating for better veterans on Capitol Hill, especially ones which claim to be successful at that (and both VV and IVAW have made that claim) should have been at this meeting. Failure to be there indicates one of two things, either they were not invited, in which case one could question how important they truly are, or they did not think it was important to meet with the Chairman to set the tone for involvement in the coming year.
So, it’s not “representing veterans” so much as it is claiming to advocate for veterans benefits, which I would argue is a different thing. No?
I’ve been involved with both – charity and advocacy. But mostly charity. I completely agree that IVAW and VV should have been there, and I would like to know what precluded them from doing so. Were they kept out for a specific reason, not invited, or invited and chose not to come? For the first two reasons, I can fully understand them not being there. That is not their fault. But if they were invited, and chose not to show up, that needs to be screamed from the mountaintops. I also would like to have seen Vets Helping Vets on that list.
Also somewhat relevant is that Soltz claims in his bio:
Jon Soltz has quickly become one of the most authoritative voices on veterans issues and military issues.
As for your other statement, regarding whether invited or not…having been a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, anyone advocating should be communicating directly with the staff of that committee on at least a weekly basis. And you should have built a personal relationship with those folks so that when things like this come up, you have an opportunity to testify, or at least submit written testimony.
So, either they didn’t know about this, in which case they really should have. Or they were explicitely excluded (which would seemingly imply impotence) or they were too busy with something else to attend. Now this event took place on Wednesday, and VoteVets didn’t do their Hill thing until Today. (As you can see from Dicksmith’s post today) In fact, Smith was flying last night, so I would be curious to learn why he couldn’t have flown in earlier to attend.
I assume that you are arguing with my inclusion of VV here and not IVAW, but I can discuss them as well. To be honest, I’m not certain we are actually disagreeing as much as debating this. But if i can make a specific argument, I will. I can point you to VV talking about their success for veterans on Capitol Hill, including stuff before the VA Committees, so my simple question to them is given their successful advocacy, why is it they were not at this coordination meeting?
No – we are not disagreeing. Like I said, they should have been there (VV and IAVA). If IVAW ever claims to be representing veterans they are completely full of shit. I know for a fact that VoteVets requests DD214’s of the vets it takes to the hill. I don’t think there is anyone within IVAW that has a DD214 or knows what one is.
And I mistook the premise of your article. If I understand you correctly, all you are saying is that if you are a veteran’s advocate you should have been at that meeting. You are not disparaging all of the fine veterans groups that do not appear on that list (which is what I had originally thought).
WLF ABSOLUTELY should have been there. And we DO have a DC presence… and can GET MORE immediately if needed (as if we couldn’t fly David in for something like this??)
Got contacts with the House dudes that set this up? We’re as big as some of those listed here- and getting bigger..
B5, alone, could have rep’d SA and WLF easily.
I have a hard problem with IAVA being there- they are PARTICULARLY partisan and political in nature. They need to go.
Wolf
I disagree on IAVA, but I’m done defending them, I will let them do it themselves.
Drinkwater: No, IVAW should not have been there and that’s all I’ll say about that. VV is a PAC, so, no, they shouldn’t have been there, either. I really don’t care what Soltz has on his bio, or what they say they are in their mission statement. Their actions and the statements over the past several years by Soltz and others has shown me that they aren’t what they claim they are, but rather that they are nothing more than political hacks who hide behind their veil of Veteran status in order to gain a measure of legitimacy within the VSO arena.
And DW, no, I am not disparaging any group not there. However, any group devoted to changing policy, or claiming to lobby, or be experts or anything else, yeah, they should be there.
There are HUNDREDS of wonderful orgs out there that help veterans every day. But not many of them have a lobbying shop, or work on shaping public policy. VV and IVAW were the only two that leaped to mind that met the specific criteria I laid out.
You know were IVAW board members and regular members are at year after year without fail? The International Socialist Organization’s yearly big-wig conference in Chicago.
Yeah, I would definitely agree that IVAW should not have been there. It is preferable to have vets representing vets.
IVAW was not invited as far as I’m aware. However, you will be pleased to know that I’m making it my personal mission to attend as many veterans advocacy meetings for IVAW as humanly possible.
Like others, I resent the implication that anyone who wasn’t invited was just too busy to come deal with veterans issues. That is jacked up and extremely unfair and inaccurate.
I’ll say sometimes IVAW does get invites to something, but without enough time to scramble to get there. I’ve gotten invites personally to things in DC with short notice, and have not been able to get there because I am a single parent. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about veterans.
OK, so 40 organizations did make it, and IVAW has a chapter in DC right? In fact, they have a house there. So, my contention is that if they were not invited, it is by virtue of the fact that they are not cultivating relationships with the HVAC as subject matter experts or interested parties. If however they were invited, and yet none of the 1700 folks in IVAW could make it, I wonder what was going on that had them so busy.
Now, unfair supposition on my part AS?
Explain to me what is unfair and inaccurate with that statement.
The supposition on your part is that if a organization wasn’t invited, it’s because they’re not trying hard enough. I think that is both unfair and inaccurate. I know that most of the IVAW members I know are working as hard as they can, with the other life responsibilities they have.
Also, it’s unfair because IVAW members really care about this stuff. When there’s more work to do, it’s not like IVAW members are going to say “Oh, more work, but I guess I’ll get some sleep instead because I’ve been up for 2 days already”. No, they’ll say “More work because MY BROTHER VETERANS ARE STILL DYING/SUFFERING. I’d better get right the fuck on that.” Nobody’s capable of blowing this shit off. People feel guilty for having lives, for spending thirty to sixty minutes in their day not advocating for veterans. I know I do, frequently. I took a night off and felt awful about it.
So when you say things that imply everyone’s not trying hard enough, it really bothers me.
OK, let me ask this, how many times has IVAW submitted written testimony to the House Veterans Affairs COmmittee?
At the beginning of each hearing the Chairman announces that he/she will keep the record open for anyone who wishes to submit testimony. Now, I would like to know how many times you guys have done that.
Put more specifically, in what ways has IVAW attemopted to infuence a political debate, other that standing on a street yelling at people, or talking to only your political supporters. As far as I remember, your only testimony ever was in front of the Progressive Caucus which is not even an official body of COngress.
Perhaps you have, but, shall we compare the number of times IVAW has submitted testimony with the 40 organizations listed above?
First I want to apologize for what I’m about to ask, because it may seem to hijack the thread, but I’m pretty desperate. Reading about all these VSOs and all got me thinking. Are there any Vet groups/orgs that specialize in Legal Aid to financially challenged Vets. Long story short. My wife and I were victums of a felony “Theft by Deception” and because of it are on the verge of losing our home and property. We’re working class poor and can’t find a Lawyer to represent us and the local authority’s haven’t done SHIT to the crook that ripped us off. Sorry once again for hijacking thread. Its late and didn’t see any recent comments. Thanks for the time and reminding me that I NEED TO RENEW my Legion Membership.
I don’t see any way IVAW can gain any credibility in the Veteran community. Between the Webb fiasco that took an act of God to rectify and a Board made up of people who have never even been to a combat zone, there is just no hope. AS, if you really want to be a Veteran advocate, leave IVAW taking as many good people with you as you can and start a legitimate advocacy group.
SSG Dirty Al,
Send us an email at the address listed above in contact us, letting us knowthe story more fully. No promises, but we can try to find someone. I know the Major Groups (TAL et al) do not, but maybe we can track someone down for you.
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) was one of the 40 and was the only one referencing the concerns of the “blue water” Sailors — Vietnam vets who were exposed to Agent Orange, but can’t get service-connected status for their problems because they served off the coast of Vietnam rather than on its shores.
To learn more about FRA’s top concerns for veterans, visit http://www.fra.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=9686
Just as an update, there is a picture on VetVoice today of VoteVets guys meeting with House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Bob Filner yesterday.
Frankly, that makes even less sense.
Let me see if I get this straight, they don’t meet with the Chairman of the Vets Affairs Committee in a meeting to discuss priorities with regards to veterans, but they do meet with him on an issue that doesn’t go through his committee? Closing Gitmo would be either Armed Services of Homeland Security, and Filner isn’t on either of them. And if he gets a vote on it, is there any doubt on how he would vote? Just seems a curious person to lobby on an issue over which he has little control, and who is foreordained to vote the way you want anyway.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
I met good individuals in IVAW, but the org at large does NOTHING to help vets. If anything, they ruin peoples lives.