A name change – that’s the ticket!
Suppose your organization was irrelevant and no one is paying attention to your message which is becoming less and less germane to your particular conversation, what’s the best way to make everyone pay attention again? Change the name? Well, that’s Victor Agosto’s idea. TJ Buonomo says the new name needs an adjustment;
I told you that TJ was the smart one. Since a large number of IVAW haven’t served in either Iraq or Afghanistan, TJ’s idea has merit. Beth Roxby agrees;
I SUPPORT limiting membership [of Iraq Veterans Against the War] to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that’s an unpopular idea right now, but I don’t really care. I think the liberal membership policy has possibly caused more problems, both for member retention and media credibility, than any other single factor. And granted, IVAW is currently facing a lot of dividing factors.
We already have an anti-war organization that welcomes all veterans, and that’s Veterans for Peace. They’re big-umbrella
Big umbrella – that means everyone who doesn’t have enough credibility to speak to combat veterans’ issues. Including TJ who barely finished MIOBC when he got out of the Army. If they narrowed membership to veterans who’ve actually been to the war, most of the Board would be gone as well as most of the membership.
So what do you guys want…a credible organization, or larger membership? I think they’ve already made up their mind – after all, dollars are more important than credibility.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Phony soldiers, Usual Suspects
Taking a page out of ACORN’s book, eh? Well, in the interest of factual accuracy, it’s not ACORN’s book so much as it is the liberal playbook. “When you’ve screwed up so irredeemably as to become a punchline, change your name and hope nobody realizes you’ve still got your head up your ass.“
Hey, it worked for firms like Blackwater and AIG. Oh, wait…
Wow, just a shade over six years for someone to suggest doing what they should have done from the day of their creation. And they wonder why no one takes them seriously…
Brand new name, same old bullshit.
“I SUPPORT limiting membership [of Iraq Veterans Against the War] to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Me too. And there is no frickin’ way such a measure would pass. Berggren, Matthis, Adrienne Kinne, and Buonomo would have to vote themselves out of the group.
Nope, if anything, they’ll go with Buonomo’s suggestion. I doubt it though; why sacrifice the facade that they’ve been committed to for so long? We already know the non-deployed members can recite all sorts of justifications for calling themselves Iraq Veterans or claiming that they don’t represent themselves as something they aren’t. In any case changing the name would be acknowledging six years of misrepresentation; based on what we’ve seen in the past, I really doubt the current membership has that level of integrity.
Yawn…Still beating the IVAW horse? They pretty much make fun of themselves, lol.
In reference to #6: Yeah, but it is entertaining to watch.
“S” squared, “D” squared
Same Shit Different Day.
Yeah, they should be a REAL vets org that only accepts REAL vets, like Vets for Freedom. Oh wait a sec……
* Non veterans can also be members of Vets for Freedom
Now they can fake veterans of both Iraq AND Afghanistan.
A turd by any other name……………
How about calling it for what it is, “_A_”, “fill in the blank-AGAINST-fill in the blank”.
Gee, Chris C. I was not aware of that. Could be because VFF doesn’t march around in t-shirts that mislead people; their public interaction is usually done in suits. Also, the people that make up the face of the group seem to be, almost without exception, veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan. Real veterans, not “Six days at Bagram” veterans. And try as I might, I can’t find one person who has been given a public platform by VFF and used it to play hero-victim, only to be ultimately revealed as a faker. No, not much in common with IVAW at all.
Its good to know that VFF has straightforward honest veterans representing it to maintain its credibility, like a gay pornstar turned marine refrigeration mechanic.
I like the suits, they´re sexy…
Yup, you really nailed ’em there. Matt Sanchez appeared in gay porn as recently as 1994. Vets for Freedom surely knew it when they hired him in 2008, and apparently didn’t give a shit, nor should they. What’s your point? Are we supposed to discount the guy’s views on the war because he’s gay? Or because he was in porn? If that’s going to be the gold standard of credibility, there’ll be a lot more discredited liberals…