thedrifter
08-14-07, 07:48 AM
Politically savvy war vets try to sway debate
By Anne Flaherty - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Aug 14, 2007 6:16:59 EDT
Despite their opposing views on the war in Iraq, soldiers Pete Hegseth and Jon Soltz have much in common.
Both profess their love of the U.S. Army. They are young, and they speak eloquently about honor and a sense of duty. Above all, they draw on their experiences in combat to justify their views on Iraq, hoping their message will resonate with voters because they — unlike most of America — have witnessed war.
They also represent dueling activist groups that are fast becoming a powerful lobbying force in Washington, especially in anticipation of a critical assessment on the war this September.
“The Democrats, unfortunately, are trying to undermine the efforts of our troops and restrict the ability of our generals to carry out their mission,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said at a news conference this summer with Hegseth and other members of Vets for Freedom, which supports a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.
Later that week, Hegseth — a National Guard soldier who worked as a civil affairs officer in Samarra last year — stood behind President Bush in a news conference chastising Democrats for not passing a spending bill for the troops.
“These patriotic Americans who are behind us deserve an opportunity to be heard,” McConnell said.
Democrats agree they should rely on the counsel of troops. But they choose to listen to Soltz, a captain in the Army Reserve who deployed logistics convoys in Iraq in 2003. His group, VoteVets.org, says Bush should bring troops home.
Politicians play on the expectation among voters that because the military is supposed to be apolitical, troops will offer an unvarnished assessment of the war.
“Their status as combat veterans gives them an authenticity that politicians don’t have,” said Darrell West, political science professor at Brown University. “Voters will always see them as combat veterans first, not advocates.”
Still, advocates they are, with extensive political ties and budgets for televised political ads.
Both Vets for Freedom and VoteVets.org are tax-exempt nonprofits, but they are not charities. Such groups deliberately do not accept tax-deductible donations — making it tougher to raise money but giving them free reign to lobby in Washington.
VoteVets.org also operates a separate political action committee and has officially endorsed six candidates for the 2008 elections. The group has spent about $850,000 this year on political ads aimed mostly at pressuring Republican senators into breaking with Bush on the war.
Its board of advisers includes retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a Vietnam veteran who sought the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., also a veteran of the Vietnam War. It is affiliated with the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of anti-war groups.
“I think you’re seeing a paradigm shift in the military, from those who served being fairly passive Republicans to being more active and opposed to what the current leadership is doing,” Soltz said.
Hegseth’s Vets for Freedom has worked with former White House spokesman Taylor Gross, and Campaign Solutions — led by Republican consultant R. Rebecca Donatelli — helps manage its online media.
This month, Vets for Freedom launched political ads in five states — Minnesota, Kentucky, Connecticut, Nebraska and Virginia — in a bid to increase support for Bush’s Iraq policies among key senators. The ads feature young combat veterans urging members to fight al-Qaida and thanking them for their support of continued military involvement in Iraq.
Hegseth said the group is still nonpartisan.
“We stand with those who stand with the mission,” he said in a recent interview. “I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. ... If you believe it’s important to finish the mission in Iraq, we will stand with you.”
Soltz and Hegseth readily acknowledge they do not speak on behalf of the military and are careful not to lobby in uniform, as prohibited under Pentagon rules.
“Those who served have a duty to speak out for those who are on active duty and cannot,” Soltz said. “As long as they follow the rules about doing so, all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans need to get involved.”
“It can become dangerous when troops use their status as a veteran to talk about their own political beliefs,” Hegseth said. “But when troops are talking about their mission and the importance of their mission and why the strategy being used is successful, or why it’s different or why it could be altered, I think that’s important.”
Ellie
By Anne Flaherty - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Aug 14, 2007 6:16:59 EDT
Despite their opposing views on the war in Iraq, soldiers Pete Hegseth and Jon Soltz have much in common.
Both profess their love of the U.S. Army. They are young, and they speak eloquently about honor and a sense of duty. Above all, they draw on their experiences in combat to justify their views on Iraq, hoping their message will resonate with voters because they — unlike most of America — have witnessed war.
They also represent dueling activist groups that are fast becoming a powerful lobbying force in Washington, especially in anticipation of a critical assessment on the war this September.
“The Democrats, unfortunately, are trying to undermine the efforts of our troops and restrict the ability of our generals to carry out their mission,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said at a news conference this summer with Hegseth and other members of Vets for Freedom, which supports a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.
Later that week, Hegseth — a National Guard soldier who worked as a civil affairs officer in Samarra last year — stood behind President Bush in a news conference chastising Democrats for not passing a spending bill for the troops.
“These patriotic Americans who are behind us deserve an opportunity to be heard,” McConnell said.
Democrats agree they should rely on the counsel of troops. But they choose to listen to Soltz, a captain in the Army Reserve who deployed logistics convoys in Iraq in 2003. His group, VoteVets.org, says Bush should bring troops home.
Politicians play on the expectation among voters that because the military is supposed to be apolitical, troops will offer an unvarnished assessment of the war.
“Their status as combat veterans gives them an authenticity that politicians don’t have,” said Darrell West, political science professor at Brown University. “Voters will always see them as combat veterans first, not advocates.”
Still, advocates they are, with extensive political ties and budgets for televised political ads.
Both Vets for Freedom and VoteVets.org are tax-exempt nonprofits, but they are not charities. Such groups deliberately do not accept tax-deductible donations — making it tougher to raise money but giving them free reign to lobby in Washington.
VoteVets.org also operates a separate political action committee and has officially endorsed six candidates for the 2008 elections. The group has spent about $850,000 this year on political ads aimed mostly at pressuring Republican senators into breaking with Bush on the war.
Its board of advisers includes retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a Vietnam veteran who sought the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., also a veteran of the Vietnam War. It is affiliated with the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of anti-war groups.
“I think you’re seeing a paradigm shift in the military, from those who served being fairly passive Republicans to being more active and opposed to what the current leadership is doing,” Soltz said.
Hegseth’s Vets for Freedom has worked with former White House spokesman Taylor Gross, and Campaign Solutions — led by Republican consultant R. Rebecca Donatelli — helps manage its online media.
This month, Vets for Freedom launched political ads in five states — Minnesota, Kentucky, Connecticut, Nebraska and Virginia — in a bid to increase support for Bush’s Iraq policies among key senators. The ads feature young combat veterans urging members to fight al-Qaida and thanking them for their support of continued military involvement in Iraq.
Hegseth said the group is still nonpartisan.
“We stand with those who stand with the mission,” he said in a recent interview. “I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. ... If you believe it’s important to finish the mission in Iraq, we will stand with you.”
Soltz and Hegseth readily acknowledge they do not speak on behalf of the military and are careful not to lobby in uniform, as prohibited under Pentagon rules.
“Those who served have a duty to speak out for those who are on active duty and cannot,” Soltz said. “As long as they follow the rules about doing so, all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans need to get involved.”
“It can become dangerous when troops use their status as a veteran to talk about their own political beliefs,” Hegseth said. “But when troops are talking about their mission and the importance of their mission and why the strategy being used is successful, or why it’s different or why it could be altered, I think that’s important.”
Ellie