Who Supports The Troops? Democrats, As It Turns Out...

[|Zach|]

Via <a href="http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/vets-group-proves-gop-does-not-support.html">Bob Geiger</a>, the <a href="http://www.iavaaction.org/">Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America</a> took a look at 324 legislative votes in the last five years which affected American troops and veterans. Legislative proposals included veterans' benefits, healthcare, and medical research dedicated towards injured soldiers (head injuries, etc.) Based on these votes, IAVA calculated which senators and congressmen had a history of supporting the troops, and which didn't, and graded them on a curve.</p><p>
You can see the full results at the IAVA website, <a href="http://iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2089&amp;Itemid=221">here</a>. But <a href="http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/iava-support-troops-rankings-for-senate.html">Bob</a> has put the Senate rankings in order of letter grade, and produced this handy chart. As you'll note, based on the over 300 votes the IAVA used in its calculation, <em>all</em> Senate Democrats have been more supportive of the troops -- when it comes to their actual <em>votes</em>, over the past five years -- than <em>any</em> of the Senate Republicans.</p><p>

<a href="http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/iava-support-troops-rankings-for-senate.html"><img src="http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/1054/IAVA_Senate_Ratings.gif"></a>

[KCWolfman]

Cool, it looks like dem legislation attempts to help them after the fact according to the votes you have mentioned.

I just wish they would vote for the needed materials during conflict so that the above would not be needed as much.

[Ugly Duck]

I just wish they would vote for the needed materials during conflict so that the above would not be needed as much.Republicans control all three branches. They can pass any legislation that they want & the Dems can't do a dang thing to stop them. Any "needed materials" that didn't get provided can't be blamed on the impotent party.

[KCWolfman]

Republicans control all three branches. They can pass any legislation that they want & the Dems can't do a dang thing to stop them. Any "needed materials" that didn't get provided can't be blamed on the impotent party.
I never stated the motions weren't passed, I stated dems voted against them.

[Mr. Kotter]

To really understand if this is meaningful, one would need to examine the wording and specific provisions of each of those bills--along with amendments to those bills.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but one can make statistics say what one wants them to say. Without context of the specific provisions for each bill, it really is pretty meaningless.

I'd say soldiers are pretty much like anyone else; they vote for their own self-interest. And, generally, they have supported Republicans more than most Democrats. If you honestly think they'd vote against their own self-interest, I'd say you are being naive.

During this election cycle, that "trend" may change....and that would be a much more meaningful indicator than someone (possibly with an agenda) and potentially convuluted "statistics."

[KCWolfman]

To really understand if this is meaningful, one would need to examine the wording and specific provisions of each of those bills--along with amendments to those bills.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but one can make statistics say what one wants them to say. Without context of the specific provisions for each bill, it really is pretty meaningless.

I'd say soldiers are pretty much like anyone else; they vote for their own self-interest. And, generally, they have supported Republicans more than most Democrats. If you honestly think they'd vote against their own self-interest, I'd say you are being naive.

During this election cycle, that "trend" may change....and that would be a much more meaningful indicator than someone (possibly with an agenda) and potentially convuluted "statistics."

Actually, my point was convulted and works well with yours. The dems typically vote for social issues - which include those mentioned by Zach in the original post. The Reps typically vote for affirmative action during the conflict. Both are effective for our troops.

For anyone to say that either side honestly supports our troops more than the other is just plain bias. Both sides of the fence support our soldiers, they are their constituents after all. However, I prefer the conservative method over the liberal one.

[Mr. Kotter]

Actually, my point was convulted and works well with yours. The dems typically vote for social issues - which include those mentioned by Zach in the original post. The Reps typically vote for affirmative action during the conflict. Both are effective for our troops.

For anyone to say that either side honestly supports our troops more than the other is just plain bias. Both sides of the fence support our soldiers, they are their constituents after all. However, I prefer the conservative method over the liberal one.Yup. And fwiw this Bob Gieger fella, from a quick google search and perusing of his writing is anything but.....a moderate. On the contrary, he's pretty unapologetic about his hard left leaning bias. And leaning left, or right.....doesn't matter which way, asaic.....diminishes one's credibility pretty substantially in any sort of discussion like this one.

[patteeu]

Cool, it looks like dem legislation attempts to help them after the fact according to the votes you have mentioned.

That was my first reaction as well. It fits their approach to the GWoT where they want to sit back and investigate after the next bomb goes off instead of taking a proactive approach. It would be nice if the democrats worked to strengthen the military and the intelligence services the next time they hold power instead of degrading them like usual.

[KC Jones]

That was my first reaction as well. It fits their approach to the GWoT where they want to sit back and investigate after the next bomb goes off instead of taking a proactive approach.

:rolleyes:

yes, and Republicans want to have anal sex with children while taking bribes, letting N. Korea develop nukes, and let Al Queada/Taliban run free in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Amnorix]

That was my first reaction as well. It fits their approach to the GWoT where they want to sit back and investigate after the next bomb goes off instead of taking a proactive approach. It would be nice if the democrats worked to strengthen the military and the intelligence services the next time they hold power instead of degrading them like usual.


Yes, let's spend MORE on the military. Therre's no such thing as enough!!

Worldwide Military spending:

Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion 2004 est. [see Note 5]
United States $466.0 billion FY04 actual [see Note 8]

don't get me wrong, I want the world's strongest military, BY FAR, but we already ahve it, and it's ludicrous that anyone suggests that our military needs "strengthening".

What is more likely needed is better allocation of existing resources given to the military.

And why is it, anyway, that throwing more money at schools and welfare is never the right answer, but throwing more money at the military is?

I'd be in favor of increasing intelligence gathering resources, especially "on the ground" intelligence, which was radically de-emphasized in favor of ELINT over the past X decades (not sure if this has continued under Bush). IMHO we need better means and methods of obtaining and sorting intelligence, than we do an upgrade to our already potent military capabilities.

[patteeu]

Yes, let's spend MORE on the military. Therre's no such thing as enough!!

Worldwide Military spending:

Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion 2004 est. [see Note 5]
United States $466.0 billion FY04 actual [see Note 8]

don't get me wrong, I want the world's strongest military, BY FAR, but we already ahve it, and it's ludicrous that anyone suggests that our military needs "strengthening".

What is more likely needed is better allocation of existing resources given to the military.

And why is it, anyway, that throwing more money at schools and welfare is never the right answer, but throwing more money at the military is?

I'd be in favor of increasing intelligence gathering resources, especially "on the ground" intelligence, which was radically de-emphasized in favor of ELINT over the past X decades (not sure if this has continued under Bush). IMHO we need better means and methods of obtaining and sorting intelligence, than we do an upgrade to our already potent military capabilities.

Money is only part of the story. You identified a big problem with the intelligence services. Thanks largely to democrats, our human intelligence capabilities have been degraded over the past 30 years or so. Another example is the democrat-born restriction that kept our operatives from working with shady characters. It's not all about the amount of money spent (although I'm sure there are countless examples of democrats trying to raid the defense budget to fund various non-defense, non-intelligence programs).

[Amnorix]

Money is only part of the story. You identified a big problem with the intelligence services. Thanks largely to democrats, our human intelligence capabilities have been degraded over the past 30 years or so.

On what grounds do you attribute this to Democrats when Republicans have controlled the White House 18 of the last 26 years, and when everyone under the sun has done little but throw money at everything related to the military? Perhaps you should look at Republicans, too, especially since paying for on the ground informants doesn't put money into a contractor's pocket in a Republican's district...

Another example is the democrat-born restriction that kept our operatives from working with shady characters. It's not all about the amount of money spent (although I'm sure there are countless examples of democrats trying to raid the defense budget to fund various non-defense, non-intelligence programs).

That restriction is foolish, and should be lifted, with that I agree.

I love, LOVE how you lay the blame for all this at the feet of the Democrats. It's quite amusing really. I don't pretend that this is all somehow the Republicans' fault, but you seemingly think it's clearly Democrats who are responsible even when Republicans have controlled ALL of Washington for the last 6 years. It's beneath you.

[patteeu]

On what grounds do you attribute this to Democrats when Republicans have controlled the White House 18 of the last 26 years, and when everyone under the sun has done little but throw money at everything related to the military? Perhaps you should look at Republicans, too, especially since paying for on the ground informants doesn't put money into a contractor's pocket in a Republican's district...

The changes were largely driven by Congress, not the various Presidents we've had over that time. Frank Church (D-ID) led a committee during the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era that was particularly damaging. Here is what Robert Ellsworth, former defense department administrator and Republican Congressman from Kansas had to say about the Church Committee (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html):

They were very specific about their effort to destroy American intelligence [capabilities]. It was Senator Church who said our intelligence agencies were 'rogue elephants.' They were supposedly out there assassinating people and playing dirty tricks and so forth…. Well, that just wasn't true.

In addition to that, we have democrat-inspired Congressional constraints placed on the Reagan administration trying to limit the way it conducted covert operations in Nicaragua and now moves by democrats (aided by so-called maverick Republicans) to micromanage the way our covert services interrogate GWoT detainees among other things. I don't recall Clinton's Republican Congresses trying to hamstring him when he led us into conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, or elsewhere.

That restriction is foolish, and should be lifted, with that I agree.

I love, LOVE how you lay the blame for all this at the feet of the Democrats. It's quite amusing really. I don't pretend that this is all somehow the Republicans' fault, but you seemingly think it's clearly Democrats who are responsible even when Republicans have controlled ALL of Washington for the last 6 years. It's beneath you.

I'd be glad to blame Republicans for the parts that they've played in any of these problems. Senator McCain gets a big thumbsdown from me for his unhelpful interference on the detainee interrogation issue. I'm sure there were a few token Republicans involved in some of the other examples too. In general though, there is a distinction to be drawn between the way democrats and Republicans "support" both the military and our intelligence services.

[Amnorix]

[QUOTE=patteeu]The changes were largely driven by Congress, not the various Presidents we've had over that time. Frank Church (D-ID) led a committee during the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate era that was particularly damaging. Here is what Robert Ellsworth, former defense department administrator and Republican Congressman from Kansas had to say about the Church Committee (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html):
/QUOTE]

I have limited time, but here's Wikipedia on the Church Committee. If none of these activities bother you, then great, but they disturb me more than a bit. I personally am less disturbed by interfering with foreign leaders and governments than in spying on ourselves, but keep in mind that if we permit assassination of foreign leaders, then presumably we're also saying it would be ok if Iran arranged a hit on President Bush, since all is fair in love and war, etc.

I realize that what we do not may impact Iran at all, but we certainly lose any moral right to object to it if someone did pull it off. The retalation, if proven, may be what we use to dissuade others from doing it (at least in a way that allows us to connect the dots), and perhaps you're ok with that. I'm somewhat on the fence on that issue.



A series of troubling revelations started to appear in the press concerning intelligence activities. First came the revelations of Christopher Pyle in January 1970 of the U.S. Army's spying on the civilian population [1] and Sam Ervin's Senate investigations that resulted. The dam broke on 22 December 1974, when The New York Times published a lengthy article by Seymour Hersh detailing operations engaged in by the CIA over the years that had been dubbed the "family jewels". Covert action programs involving assassination attempts against foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens.

These revelations convinced many Senators and Representatives that the Congress itself had been too lax, trusting, and naive in carrying out its oversight responsibilities. (Many of the so-called family jewels had been briefed to some members on the existing oversight panels, but in the highly charged atmosphere of the Watergate period they tended to opt for selective amnesia when asked if they had known about these activities.)[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

[penchief]

Cool, it looks like dem legislation attempts to help them after the fact according to the votes you have mentioned.

I just wish they would vote for the needed materials during conflict so that the above would not be needed as much.

I think liberals look at a war of choice through the lens of humanity. They see the toll it takes on American families. They see the toll it takes on human progress. I think republicans look at a war of choice through the lens of power and profit. They see opportunities. They see control. It's unfair to categorize liberals/democrats as pussies who won't defend their country.

Democrats WILL fight justified wars. The World War II generation was also the FDR generation. Much of the patriotism that fueled America's effort during WWII was generated by the belief that America truly was the land of justice and equity. And the WWII generation came out of that war with those ideals even stronger. And our society grew and benefitted so much from those values. Sorry to see it go.

Simply put, liberals don't believe that the destruction and suffering of war is something to be wielded for political or economic self-interest. We will fight to defend our country and it's virtue but we will not sacrifice our virtue or our assets in order to impose our will for reasons that are not noble or are self-defeating.

And for what it's worth, I do believe that the left fights for the rights of soldiers and veterans whereas the right views them as nothing more than a tool. Just look at what Bush has proposed to do to veterans benefits and health care at a time when this administration has exploited our troops in Iraq. Oddly, it's been democrats who have fought those republican attempts to undercut our veterans and soldiers.

Caring about the troops also means not abusing their purpose. It also means being aware of the real cost.