AFL-CIO maliciously using veterans to make faulty point
By now you have likely seen this ad.
Since I actually work for a Veterans Service Organization, and deal with these issues, I knew right off the bat that it wasn’t accurate. Unfortunately, I also knew that pointing that out would subject me to statements about being a shill for McCain, despite having repeatedly stated that I will either not vote for him, or vote for him like I did Hillary in the campaign, with eyes shut and nose held.
Anyway, I didn’t post anything, and now I don’t have to, as Factcheck.org did it for me. I’ve followed Factcheck since they debunked the worst ad I’ve ever seen, that assinine Vietnam Body Armor ad by Vote Vets.
Anyway, this is the summary of what they found:
The AFL-CIO is attacking McCain with a TV spot saying he voted “against increasing health care benefits for veterans.” Actually, he voted for increases in those benefits. The labor federation points to McCain’s votes against Democratic proposals to increase funding. Those were defeated along party lines, and then quickly followed by alternative measures to increase benefits by smaller amounts, all of which passed unanimously or with near-unanimous majorities. McCain supported all of them.The AFL-CIO also points to a McCain vote against a war spending supplemental appropriations measure from 2007 that included additional funding for veterans’ health care, along with much else. The measure passed the Senate along partisan lines but was vetoed by President Bush. But McCain voted for a later version of the supplemental that ultimately passed into law and actually included slightly more funding for veterans’ benefits.
If you are going to use us veterans to make a point, could you at least TRY and make it somewhat accurate? Seriously. I am the last person to claim that the GOP is better on veterans (specifically VA) issues than the Democrats, something not borne out by the budgets when each were in control, so why not just state the facts and be done with it? I expect a ton more of these hit pieces, and if their goal is to make me more eager to vote for a guy whose immigration and global warming policies make me throw up a little in my mouth, then I say unto you: Mission Accomplished.
ON EDIT: I’ve done a little more research on Jim Wasser, the AFL-CIO guy in the video, and come to the conclusion he’s a lying crap weasel. It should shock no one that he did a bunch of stuff in 2004 for Kerry, ostensibly to rebut the Swiftees. Anyway, I loved this passage he has on the AFL-CIO website:
On the veterans’ issues, everyone respects McCain’s war service. We veterans never forget other veterans and we should never say anything bad about another veterans’ military service – that’s hallowed ground.
Mr. Wasser, you have a call from General Clark on line 2, line 2.
Category: John McCain/Sarah Palin, Politics, Support the troops
Last time, Jane Fonda provided the place where Vietnam Veterans Against the War could smear our troops as baby killers and war criminals.
This time, the AFL-CIO provided the National Labor College so the Iraq Veterans Against the War could smear our troops as baby killers and war criminals.
Bastards all.
TSO I didn’t know you were one of “Hillary’s Boys” during the primary.Careful not to make COB6 jealous.He had a huge crush on those pantsuits.”Eyes shut and nose held” you’ll vote for McCain.Can his campaign use that in a jingle.Sounds pretty much like his typical “supporter”.
Just because I am not a big supporter doesn’t mean I am not inundated daily with emails from folks who are. I only voted for Hillary because Obama is the worst of all worlds in my opinion, at least in so far as effect on the military is concerned.
TSO Isn’t it kinda depressing to vote against someone rather than for someone?Any rate it didn’t work in the primary and certainly won’t work in the general election.As I mentioned to Jonn wouldn’t Conservatives do better to step away from Mac and come back with a candidate you can truly support in 2012(you’ve mentioned a few.)President Obama will welcome the challenge.
TSO: By 2012, there will be several Supreme Court nominees, and the War on Terror will still being waged. Although I won’t be enthusiastic about McCain, I can justify voting for him on those grounds. Would I prefer it was someone else? Sure. But the only politician I agree with over 90% of the time is a Democrat Congressman in Georgia. Either way, I look at the 2010 election far more than the 2012 one. I’m of the belief that a bad congress can do more damage than a bad Pres.
“Isn’t it kinda depressing to vote against someone rather than for someone?”
I would ask the same of Obama’s supporters, who constitute the most anti/negative political constituency in this country. Excepting Socialism, it’s hard to tell what Barry and his followers aren’t running against.
They should have just pointed out that McCain was against veteran’s education benefits, for how much he badmouthed the Webb GI Bill. Which reminds me, I need to do a post about that.
TSO: Why not, won’t be any less accurate than anything else. Of course, he wasn’t against veterans education benefits, in point of fact the one he proposed would have been more money. What he opposed was the lack of transferability, but lets not let pesky facts get in the way of a great diologue.
That was me, for some reason my settings deleted.
Here’s a link to the video of John McCain explaining why he was against the Webb GI Bill:
John McCain’s explanation for being opposed to the Webb GI Bill
What he doesn’t mention is that his plan was not generous, and actually was quite paltry. His “top category” didn’t even come close to approaching what the Webb GI Bill does for all.
Paltry by what standard? I’m not inclined to waste time watching nonsense in this ad.
So, TSO, when are you coming back to West Chester?
A/S,
Stop the play acting and be honest. Webb’s bill wasn’t about anything else that wrecking retention.
By the WWII standard the college plan was originally created for.
Also, Raoul, must you be such a cynic? Why can’t someone simply want to treat veteras well for a change?
Because if Webb gave a shit about the military and veterans, he would start showing up for the hearings for the commitees he is currently on. But since when Dr Chu came to give testimony on retention Senator Webb arrived 47 minutes late, after the testimony, and stayed to ask 1 question, before leaving after a total stay of 17 minutes. I provided Senator Webb with this information and asked what he was doing that day. I still have not heard back. I doubt I ever will.
TSO — did ya miss Skye sayin
“So, TSO, when are you coming back to West Chester?”
Looks like your charms worked again…
TSO: Are you kidding? I printed it out and carry it in my wallet. Just afraid to respond, cause this is my moment of transendant glory!
Hmmm…I wonder if the Prolific Author from Virginia had a more important meeting with his publisher that day?? After all, such literary genius should not be encumbered by the trivial affairs of the United States Senate.
A/S,
Cynic? When I call your bluff, don’t drink your Kool Aid, I’m a cynic.
Don’t even think about comparing the over all scope of WWII to this conflict. Person for person I’m on record as saying this generation (except IVAW) deserves as much respect as the generation who fought WWII. The stakes if we fail to stop terror are as great as in WWII. And thye have their hardships unique to this war.
But the WWII folks they didn’t get tours, they fought pretty much “for the duration”. Many had the equivalent of four continuous tours (Army) or eight (Marines). There’s no unit in Iraq or Afghanistan that wakes up knowing that the odds are 100% you won’t live through 25 missions like the early Eight Air Force bomber crews. If there was an IVAW in the 8th AF we’d still hear the echoes of their whining. Eight AF didn’t whine.
Spend three years in, get four years of benefits. You’re not covering costs would be the analogy. Buy ’em for $4 and sell them for $3….with making it up in volume being your key to profitability I guess.
They Army’s mission isn’t social welfare, it’s national security.
“Why can’t someone simply want to treat veteras well for a change?”
Well for a change? Over all it’s not bad at all. Yeah there are some things that should be better, but I was of that opnion back in ’82, before you were born and was motiovated by a concern for the troop, not looking for a club to beat on a war I oppose.
Your side exaggerates so badly that I concider it lying.
I’ll go back to the bottom line, that bill’s goal wasn’t to help Soldiers, it was to cripple the Army where possible. Benefits are meant to recruit, reward and even encourage retention. By those measures, that bill is fatally flawed. Those were meant to cause a stampede for the exits.