Veterans, angry over Iraq, run for Congress

[Spider]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11225344/
Potentially unprecedented number of ex-service members running

Jack Dempsey / AP Democrat Jay Fawcett, after 20 years in the Air Force, is running for Congress, hoping to change how U.S. troops are used in Iraq.


Updated: 7:40 p.m. ET Feb. 7, 2006
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - After 20 years in the Air Force and Bronze Star service during the 1991 Gulf War, Democrat Jay Fawcett decided to come home and run for Congress, largely out of disgust with the way American troops were being used in Iraq.

“I think it’s just gotten to the point where a significant number of us who’ve served are looking at this administration particularly — and Congress doesn’t get off the hook — and saying, ‘What’re you doing? What’s the plan?”’ he said.

Fawcett is part of a large and possibly unprecedented number of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines running for Congress this year.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About 40 of the candidates are Republicans, while at least 55 are Democrats. By one count, at least 11 veterans of the Iraq war or Afghanistan are hoping to get elected to the House or Senate, all but one of them Democrats.

The fighting Democrats, as some call themselves, say their military experience could give them the credibility to criticize the war without being dismissed out of hand by the GOP as naive and weak on defense, as the Bush administration has often done.

“One of the things I think is behind this movement is, we’re not stupid in the military. We know when we’ve been used and misused,” said Navy veteran Bill Winter, a Democrat who hopes to challenge GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo in the Republican suburbs of Denver.

Hoping Iraq war veterans will run
Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost both legs and an arm while serving in Vietnam, said the Iraq war veterans running as Democrats will offer “a direct rebuttal” to the administration on the Iraq war.

“This administration, come April, will be going into the fourth year of this war after the president said three weeks into it ‘Major combat over, mission accomplished, bring them on,”’ Cleland said. “You tell me who’s out of touch. It’s not these Iraqi veterans that are coming back and saying, ‘This is not the way it was on the ground there, and I’m going to do something to change this.”’

Fawcett, who spent years as a defense contractor after leaving the Air Force, wants to take on Republican Rep. Joel Hefley in a Colorado Springs-area district that has one of the country’s biggest concentrations of veterans. It includes the Air Force Academy, two Air Force bases, a major Army installation and NORAD, the air defense command. The district has been represented by a Republican since the seat was created more than three decades ago.

[Spider]

Different stances on war
The roster of Democratic veterans includes engineers, teachers, lawyers, business owners and a pastor. Their stands on the war range from calling for immediate withdrawal to demanding a clearer timetable and a way out. Fawcett, for example, says that pulling out now would be a mistake, but that the Bush administration has failed to clearly state its goals and an exit strategy.

Among other veterans running for office:

Marine reservist Paul Hackett, who served in Iraq and is running for the Senate in Ohio. The Democrat narrowly lost a special House election last year in a district where President Bush won 64 percent of the vote in 2004.
Former Army Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost her legs in a grenade attack in Iraq. She is running as a Democrat for the Illinois congressional seat of retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde. She said she privately disagreed with Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but still volunteered to serve. “We should have been fighting the enemies that attacked us at home on 9/11,” she said in December. “We should have been out there trying to catch Osama bin Laden.”
Democrat Eric Massa, a 24-year Navy officer challenging freshman Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl in western New York.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elections after the end of World War II and the Vietnam War also saw large numbers of veterans running for Congress.

Republicans this time around could have a difficult time countering opposition to the administration’s war plan — or the war itself — from veteran-Democrats, said Gary Jacobson, a congressional scholar at the University of California at San Diego.

“Popular sentiment is not terribly pro-war now, and there’s lots of doubts about the administration’s honesty and the purposes of the war,” he said. “So if you have a veteran come back and start trashing the war, that’s a problem for Republicans.”

Still, a veteran cannot count on an easy win, said Ed Patru, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

“Being a veteran, it’s great to have that on your resume,” he said. “People appreciate veterans, but if you’re wrong on taxes and the economy, the bread-and-butter, kitchen-tabletop kind of issues, being a veteran is not going to save you.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[loborugger]

I am all for Vets - from both sides of the aisle - running for office. I think that service above all demonstrates that someone is willing to put their neck in the noose for what they believe in.

I remember as a boy reading the book Starship Troopers - which was turned into a miserable movie. In the book, the author (Heinlein, I believe) created a representative gov't where only those who had served society had a say in society... in his society, service included cops, soldiers and other less than savory or dangerous tasks done volunteerly. In turn, those "vets" were given the right to vote, hold office, etc. I kinda like that idea... nothing in, nothing out.

As for these specific returning soldiers running for office... more power to them. There is a ton of lip service, on both sides of the aisle, to supporting the troops, blah, blah, blah. When/if folks like this get elected, I think it will be more than lip service. Also, they can work on getting the bureacracies in line (see the thread about wounded GIs paying for body armor lost during surgery).

My personal experience with people currently on active duty or in the reserves is that there is a strong dislike of the current headhonchos (specifically Rumsfeld). That even goes for those in favor of the war. I strongly believe there is need for a change of the guard, and this could be the first step.

[Spider]

I am all for Vets - from both sides of the aisle - running for office. I think that service above all demonstrates that someone is willing to put their neck in the noose for what they believe in.

I remember as a boy reading the book Starship Troopers - which was turned into a miserable movie. In the book, the author (Heinlein, I believe) created a representative gov't where only those who had served society had a say in society... in his society, service included cops, soldiers and other less than savory or dangerous tasks done volunteerly. In turn, those "vets" were given the right to vote, hold office, etc. I kinda like that idea... nothing in, nothing out.

As for these specific returning soldiers running for office... more power to them. There is a ton of lip service, on both sides of the aisle, to supporting the troops, blah, blah, blah. When/if folks like this get elected, I think it will be more than lip service. Also, they can work on getting the bureacracies in line (see the thread about wounded GIs paying for body armor lost during surgery).

My personal experience with people currently on active duty or in the reserves is that there is a strong dislike of the current headhonchos (specifically Rumsfeld). That even goes for those in favor of the war. I strongly believe there is need for a change of the guard, and this could be the first step.
Agreed , we know one thing for sure , these guys will stand up and fight for what they believe in ,they may not know taxes , but they can learn ....... IfI could I would vote for everyone of them , these guys learn a code while in service , and this code they use the rst of their life .........

[Spider]

My personal experience with people currently on active duty or in the reserves is that there is a strong dislike of the current headhonchos (specifically Rumsfeld). That even goes for those in favor of the war. I strongly believe there is need for a change of the guard, and this could be the first step.
Bingo , I think you are on to somthing here , Most would be against the Iraqi war regaurdless , but for folkslike me , the way the war is being ran , financed , etc is my biggest beef , personaly i think we still should be hunting OBL , instead of Iraq , but if we went in , did Iraq right , got out I wouldnt like it , but I would have very little to bítch about .............

[loborugger]

We can woulda, coulda, shoulda Iraq to death here. If Iraq was a damn video game, I would turn off the game, go back, and not do it again. But, I cant so we have to deal with it.

In light of things as they are, what do you think we should do now?

Heres my idea... We set up clear and easily defineable objects. Things like X amount of trained troops, and X amount of trained police. We define a stable government. I would define it with something like (open to ideas) 2 or 3 valid successful elections, able to function on a day to day basis, able to generate revenue. Sorta like if this was a cowboy movie, we would pick them up, dust em off, and put their hat back on their head.

At that point, we begin withdrawing. Period. We set up a clear deadline, say 90 days. Period. At at point, we are gone. We will provide some assistance (no more troops on their soil), but other than that, its gotta run on its on... its got all the tools, spare parts, and technology to make the engine run.

Its sorta like a fledglingly bird... its gotta get the boot outta the nest. Otherwise it will NEVER leave or survive on its own. Democracy is working in places like Poland and Mongol. Why??? Not because we sent troops there & spilled blood. It works because the people there wanted it to. They were fed up with the past, and saw open society as a future they wanted to pursue. Once our revolution was over, we made it work, without outside assistance. Again, because people wanted it to work. Sure, there were problems... states didnt get along, a whiskey rebellion, etc. But we succeeded because an overwhelming majority of Americans were onboard and wanted it to work.

The Iraqi people have to want this thing to work, otherwise it never will. No amount of our blood, resources, or money will make it work otherwise. On the flip side, if they are dedicated to its success, very little will stop them in achieving it. Only they can determine their future. We can only make a mess of it.

[Hotrod]

I think people should just remember that second guessing is not a policy ;D

[TheDave]

I think people should just remember that second guessing is not a policy ;D

and doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of CRAZY :)

[Spider]

We can woulda, coulda, shoulda Iraq to death here. If Iraq was a damn video game, I would turn off the game, go back, and not do it again. But, I cant so we have to deal with it.
that is a cold hard fact , 1 thing we need to do is , learn from Iraq , avaoid this kind of crap in the future.........

In light of things as they are, what do you think we should do now?
Well we cant just up and pull out , a timetable realy isnt the answer , attaining simple goals ,couldbe ashort term amswer , but as soon as we pull out , theextreme parts of Islam would be hard to supress for a fledging goverment .........
Heres my idea... We set up clear and easily defineable objects. Things like X amount of trained troops, and X amount of trained police. We define a stable government. I would define it with something like (open to ideas) 2 or 3 valid successful elections, able to function on a day to day basis, able to generate revenue. Sorta like if this was a cowboy movie, we would pick them up, dust em off, and put their hat back on their head.

At that point, we begin withdrawing. Period. We set up a clear deadline, say 90 days. Period. At at point, we are gone. We will provide some assistance (no more troops on their soil), but other than that, its gotta run on its on... its got all the tools, spare parts, and technology to make the engine run.

Its sorta like a fledglingly bird... its gotta get the boot outta the nest. Otherwise it will NEVER leave or survive on its own. Democracy is working in places like Poland and Mongol. Why??? Not because we sent troops there & spilled blood. It works because the people there wanted it to. They were fed up with the past, and saw open society as a future they wanted to pursue. Once our revolution was over, we made it work, without outside assistance. Again, because people wanted it to work. Sure, there were problems... states didnt get along, a whiskey rebellion, etc. But we succeeded because an overwhelming majority of Americans were onboard and wanted it to work.

The Iraqi people have to want this thing to work, otherwise it never will. No amount of our blood, resources, or money will make it work otherwise. On the flip side, if they are dedicated to its success, very little will stop them in achieving it. Only they can determine their future. We can only make a mess of it.
That is more of a plan then our leaders have , and with a few exceptions, yourplan wouldbe the way to go

[Hotrod]

and doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the definition of CRAZY :)

I would agree :thumbsup: I think the real problem here is all our leaders are idiots and untrustworthy. Were basically screwed. I think todays politics are scary. It is somewhat amusing watching both sides point fingers and bitch and moan when Ive personally come to the conclussion their all evil.

[TheDave]

I would agree :thumbsup: I think the real problem here is all our leaders are idiots and untrustworthy. Were basically screwed. I think todays politics are scary. It is somewhat amusing watching both sides point fingers and b**** and moan when Ive personally come to the conclussion their all evil.

absolutely, couldn't agree more. I find it hilarious that on this board the one gauranteed way of making everyone agree is to say both sides of the fence are screwed. I am seriously tired of voting for the lesser of two evils... I wonder what it's going to take to get a 3rd part involved in a meaningful way.

[Hotrod]

absolutely, couldn't agree more. I find it hilarious that on this board the one gauranteed way of making everyone agree is to say both sides of the fence are screwed. I am seriously tired of voting for the lesser of two evils... I wonder what it's going to take to get a 3rd part involved in a meaningful way.

1. education
2. finanace reform
3. a decent canidate
4. a miracle

[Hotrod]

While were on the subject another step would be media reform. Think about it Fox has the right and CNN has the left and both WILL cater to their viewers. Too many on both the left and the right only watch/see/hear what they want to hear/see. Then the 3rd party guy is creamed by both sides. I know its more then a pipedream but having truely free/unbiased news would be refreshing to say the least.

[TheDave]

While were on the subject another step would be media reform. Think about it Fox has the right and CNN has the left and both WILL cater to their viewers. Too many on both the left and the right only watch/see/hear what they want to hear/see. Then the 3rd party guy is creamed by both sides. I know its more then a pipedream but having truely free/unbiased news would be refreshing to say the least.

1. education
2. finanace reform
3. a decent canidate
4. a miracle
5. another miracle (unbiased media)

[loborugger]

While were on the subject another step would be media reform. Think about it Fox has the right and CNN has the left and both WILL cater to their viewers. Too many on both the left and the right only watch/see/hear what they want to hear/see. Then the 3rd party guy is creamed by both sides. I know its more then a pipedream but having truely free/unbiased news would be refreshing to say the least.

How do you reform the media??? Gov't regulation??? That sounds, umm, let me think... totalitarian. Besides, the Gov't does very little well and I really doubt that regulating free speech will be one of its strong suits.

The media is a business. It is driven by the market. You dont like the product, dont buy it. Period. Support the media outlets that you think are viable. Fox and CNN will keep on thriving as long as the ad bucks keep on rolling in.

[Hotrod]

How do you reform the media??? Gov't regulation??? That sounds, umm, let me think... totalitarian. Besides, the Gov't does very little well and I really doubt that regulating free speech will be one of its strong suits.

The media is a business. It is driven by the market. You dont like the product, dont buy it. Period. Support the media outlets that you think are viable. Fox and CNN will keep on thriving as long as the ad bucks keep on rolling in.

Like I said a "pipedream" and I certainly would not want the government to touch the media (although some would say they do on some level). The reform would have to come from the people and the owners. Again a pipedream.

As far as not liking the market dont buy it thats exactly what alot of people do. They give up "stop paying attention/stop voting/ thats not exactly a great solution.

[Spider]

Fox, CNN , you know to expect when you turn these stations on , what ever one should watch out for is the Rush Limbaughs ,Bill O'Reilly,Sean Insanity , Michale Moore , Michele Mcaulklin , Ann coulter ,Kames Carvell etc .......... these are the people that realy slant a view or spin ......... Kieth Olberman is left , but he does bring the truth , in a comedy kind away .....

[Hotrod]

Fox, CNN , you know to expect when you turn these stations on , what ever one should watch out for is the Rush Limbaughs ,Bill O'Reilly,Sean Insanity , Michale Moore , Michele Mcaulklin , Ann coulter ,Kames Carvell etc .......... these are the people that realy slant a view or spin ......... Kieth Olberman is left , but he does bring the truth , in a comedy kind away .....

The problem here is most people dont realize their being feed BS they think "The news guys said it it must be true"

I used to like Bill O'reilly back when he was more angry and pulled people mics when they disagreed :rofl: Oh I did not watch him for truth or news but more for the entertainment value ;D

[defenseman]

Military experience will help. However, if you do not understand nor have a plan for :
medical issues, the border, taxes (especially the ones who's only desire is to raise them to solve all our problems,this is DAMN stupid), education, etc...etc... in addition to how to win the war/and rapidly get us out.......Simply said, JUST the war position WILL NOT get you elected. Some of you say Well, he or she is smart, they'll learn or pick it up, is absolutely WRONG.

The next election is EXTREMELY important. Throwing your vote based on ONE issue , is absolutely idiotic. WE MUST select the most qualified candidate with the minumum amount of risk associated with the candidate. You make a selection on one overriding point (party affiliation or war position or education etc..etc..) you deserve exactly what you get. Mediocrity will again reign free, and we get no where........dman

The PARTY vote WILL NOT cut it, this time around.

[24champ]

I would agree :thumbsup: I think the real problem here is all our leaders are idiots and untrustworthy. Were basically screwed. I think todays politics are scary. It is somewhat amusing watching both sides point fingers and b**** and moan when Ive personally come to the conclussion their all evil.
Not only that but they dont even have their own views on topics anymore, they run things based on freakin polls.

[defenseman]

No time like the present for a third party to put forth a platform and qualified candidate. I am more than willing to listen to all "three" parties in hopes of finding the right choice. I've voted REPUB , for the most part , in the past, not any more. I'm looking for the best candidate, thats the only bench mark in todays society that will allow for the best chance of success, party affiliation doesn't fit in my formula anymore.....dman

*However, I am sick of politics at funerals....aka....coretta scott king. Pretty sad state of affairs for the DEMS if you ask me.

[alkemical]

dman,

before the left and right were more moderate and weren't THAT far apart really. Now it's being proven how close the extremes are, and i believe that America wants to go back to the middle ground.

[Hotrod]

*However, I am sick of politics at funerals....aka....coretta scott king. Pretty sad state of affairs for the DEMS if you ask me.

It was pretty stupid on their parts and I was not going to even bring it up. I was just going to wait and see if anyone in particular posted some 'bartercop' (or whatever it is) thingy about it :spit:

[24champ]

No time like the present for a third party to put forth a platform and qualified candidate. I am more than willing to listen to all "three" parties in hopes of finding the right choice. I've voted REPUB , for the most part , in the past, not any more. I'm looking for the best candidate, thats the only bench mark in todays society that will allow for the best chance of success, party affiliation doesn't fit in my formula anymore.....dman

*However, I am sick of politics at funerals....aka....coretta scott king. Pretty sad state of affairs for the DEMS if you ask me.
I agree with that entire post dman. Reminds me of the Paul Wellstone funeral in MN. Problem with a third party is money. Dems and repubs are both backed up by people with deep pockets, A third party would get creamed.

[defenseman]

I KNOW you are absolutely correct. However, what is it going to take for the darn politicians to get that through their thick skulls. The man that puts forth a reasonably well thought out platform, ensuring fiscal sense is injected, should come out on top this time around. He should find ground on EACH side of the aisle of congress. If he does, he will be elected. It's a simple formula this time around. Just be honest and don't adjust your words to adjust the polls, and you will be the winner. Hilary, however, don't bother. We aren't ready for her...dman

[24champ]

I KNOW you are absolutely correct. However, what is it going to take for the darn politicians to get that through their thick skulls. The man that puts forth a reasonably well thought out platform, ensuring fiscal sense is injected, should come out on top this time around. He should find ground on EACH side of the aisle of congress. If he does, he will be elected. It's a simple formula this time around. Just be honest and don't adjust your words to adjust the polls, and you will be the winner. Hilary, however, don't bother. We aren't ready for her...dman
Hillary isnt even well liked in her own party, im sure that it is the far-left kooks that do not like her stance on Iraq. Personally I dont trust politicians anymore, I dont even have to look any further than my own state with Gov. Schwarzenegger who ran on the platform that nobody was going to tell him what to do, no special interests or politics. Sure that sounded great, voted for the guy and what happens? Spends 48 million on a special election that completely bombed. Im sick of hearing it, I just want to see some freakin results.

[defenseman]

You nailed it. RESULTS!! All a guy has to do is to think through the issues, do his best to engage a solution, make fiscal sense of it all, and you're in there. He CANNOT pay attention to the "special interests" groups. They are a "fringe" of society whom have completely too much control of monies, and how they are distributed. The "minorities" of the country need to quit believing they are "minorities". Put into place policies and opportunities to enable them to "earn" their way to believing and seeing with hard work, (and the same opportunities for the non minorities) they can get ahead in the world. Don't allow their figure head leaders to install an invisible "crutch" under their arm, and digress to the "oh woah is me" approach. Polls , should be allowed, however, regarded for what they are, bunk. And bunk, really is what they are....dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I would agree :thumbsup: I think the real problem here is all our leaders are idiots and untrustworthy. Were basically screwed. I think todays politics are scary. It is somewhat amusing watching both sides point fingers and b**** and moan when Ive personally come to the conclussion their all evil.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you there.

Although there are a few exceptions, most of them only care about their own power and glory and job security. They couldn't give a tinker's f_ck less whether they are really representing the folks who sent them to Washington or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

that is a cold hard fact , 1 thing we need to do is , learn from Iraq , avaoid this kind of crap in the future.........

Yep.

But I sure as hell don't think Bush and Co. should just walk away clean for lying us into this war. There should be a real investigation, and there should be criminal charges.

[Hotrod]

Yep.

But I sure as hell don't think Bush and Co. should just walk away clean for lying us into this war. There should be a real investigation, and there should be criminal charges.

Criminal charges wtf its not like Bush got a BJ or something evil like that ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Criminal charges wtf its not like Bush got a BJ or something evil like that ;D

Ooops - you're right.

I forgot the rules. ;)

[Spider]

Man I am damn impressed with the posters in this thread on this subject ........
Solid takes all around , no spin , no talking points ........ Just flat out they all suck ,and voting party line isnt the answer ......... what thrills me is I think 90% of America feels this way , but it is hard for centrist to get a message out , with out hearing if you ride the middle of the road bullshít you will get hit by a bus ....
one thing everyone will have to say is the Clintons and the Bush's are polarizing figures ........