Vote Vets defends anti-Allen ad

[Rose Siding]

snip>
The ad's shocking claim - that Allen deliberately denied troops lifesaving equipment - outraged Allen's campaign.

"This ad is deceitful and a lie," Allen campaign manager Dick Wadhams said.
...
(VoteVets.org chairman Jon) Soltz defended the claim (in the ad), based on a vote Allen cast in 2003 against an amendment Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., offered to boost National Guard and Reserves equipment funding by $1 billion.

Landrieu's amendment died on a 52-47 vote with Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., and every other Republican voting to table Landrieu's bill. One Democrat, Zell Miller of Georgia, voted with the GOP majority.

"This was a life-or-death vote, and he voted death," said Soltz, an Army Reserves captain who served with the 1st Armored Division in Baghdad.

He said in a telephone interview that many in his unit were issued the Vietnam-era jackets, while others were given the vests for the modern system, but not the armor plates to insert in the vest to make it bulletproof.

http://www.wsls.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSLS%2FMGArticle%2FSLS_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149190621247&path=!news!localnews

[FogerRox]

1. Hey Mr Maccaca, James Webb is going to kick your ass.. K & R

Buh bye fooker.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. It's a powerful ad.....

Looks as if VoteVets.org have taken off the kid gloves. Sounds like they may be even be an effective counter to the Swift-boaters..

[Renew Deal]

3. There's a lot more of these out there.

And I hope Dems use them.

[maseman]

4. Swift these motherfuckers

Sorry for my raw language. But I am pissed off and fired up dammit.

I am tired of people DYING for these lunatic asshole rich white men politicians. While they dine on filet and crabmeat sipping fine wines our troops are over the pond dying.

I just saw on CNN that more then 20,000 US troops have now been wounded with 9,000 seriously. Of course that is beyond the 2,700 dead.

Man am I pissed off.

[lisainmilo]

5. I joined this organization!

I think it's great! :)

[Straight Shooter]

6. "A life or death vote, and he voted death."

Wow, that sums up the Republican Congress and the bush administration in a nutshell, don'tcha think?

Could we please get Jon Soltz to work on campaign ads for Dems? All he did was tell the damn truth.

:thumbsup:

[Bluestar]

7. Finally!!!

We attack them before they attack us!!! I love this ad. Why is it "going too far" to speak the truth? I hope the Dems don't back off. I am going to send this organization some money.

[cynicalbrit]

8. Is it just me...?

Or are they defending themselves by saying "we didn't send olive green Vietnam-era flak jackets to the gulf" but not saying "we didn't send yellowish Vietnam-era flak jackets to the gulf"

[Laurab]

24. You are cynical - I like that!

they ARE pretty specific, mentioning olive green - could be.....

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[rocktivity]

42. Welcome to DU, Cynical Brit!

Are you aware that that DU has a United Kingdom board? I hope you'll be able to prodvide us Yanks with insight to what's really going on in the UK politically!

:headbang:
rocknation

[cynicalbrit]

44. Hi

Hi to you both. Thanks for the info about UK message board.

[Quixote1818]

9. Instead of being upset, perhaps Allen should feel some remorse

for his "death" vote and apologize. Allen clearly didn't care about the soldiers and he deserves everything he is getting hit with.

[CarbonDate]

10. What, Allen doesn't stand behind his vote?

Sheesh, first he won't stand behind his racial slur, now he won't stand behind his vote to get our troops killed? What *does* Sen. Allen stand for these days?

[CarbonDate]

11. Oh and one other thing....

"The ad's scandalous charge and its adamant tone could boomerang if voters find it too outrageous, Sabato said."

I have never seen this happen. Not once. The Swift Boat Vets were way more outrageous than this ad was.

[The Wizard]

31. What does Allen stand for?

Hmmmmmmm, let's see: burning crosses, plantations, cheap labor, morans, gibberish, caviar for the wealthy, dumpster diving for the working class. He's just another political Paris Hilton minus the compromising video as far as we know, living off trust funds and a family name, never accomplishing anything good in his miserable life. Wait until those Klansmen whose support was in the bag find out he's half Jewish.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Loved the ad.....

and love that Wes Clark is one of this group's leaders! :patriot:

Now, let's continue to kick ass....and let's get ready to Ruuuuummmmmmmmmble to win 2006!

[TayTay]

15. I also love the fact that John Kerry has sent out two fundraising appeals

for this group to get them the money they need to continue to air these ads and to take them to other states.

It's nice when good Democracts work together to advance the progressive agenda!

[blm]

25. ClelandClarkKerry have been an awesome team building a vet infrastructure

for the Dem party. They;ve been doing it tirelessly for 3yrs. now. They WITNESSED the need in 2003-4 and are following through for the party.

I salute them all.

[rocktivity]

40. While watching Tucker Carlson dance the other day

I decided that Max Cleland would have done a better job.

:headbang:
rocknation

[joefree1]

13. Blowback's a bitch

Yeesh, the repukes whine a lot. Whimps.

[Vickers]

14. Keep throwing the cold hard truth at these cockroaches

and watch 'em scurry.

These veterans will know how to go on the offensive.

[autorank]

16. To damn bad Felix. This is what accountability is all about.

The ad is fine. It's straight forward and it tells the truth. If the bloviating Felix gave a damn, he'd have voted with Landrieu. He didn't and this is the result. I'm in VA and I want it run on
every TV station in the state and I want them to do radio too!

Screw Felix and the other Republicans. This should be used in every senate campaign in America.

[wicket]

17. The truth hurts, eh Felix???

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[leesa]

18. Good. Let this finally come out! EVERY Republican voted against

the safety and welfare of the soldiers. They shouldn't have been allowed to get away with that.

[NewJeffCT]

21. Was it just in the Senate?

Or, was there also a similar bill in the House?

[civildisoBDence]

19. I think the ad is unfair

That's why I LOVE it.

Payback's tough. Fight fire with fire. What goes around comes around. You reap what you sow.

Newsprism

[redqueen]

22. How is the ad unfair? n/t

[NewJeffCT]

20. Vote Vets also ran an anti-Lieberman ad

Vote Vets also ran a strong anti-Lieberman ad here in Connecticut as well. It posed several tough questions – what is our military strategy in Iraq? Where are those WMD? Etc, etc – and then asks why didn’t Sen. Lieberman ask them. It was on morning drive radio here in Hartford on WTIC 1080 – a 50,000 Watt station. It was also a full page ad in the Hartford Courant.

[LibDemAlways]

23. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.

During Vietnam Felix was holed up in college and kicking back on dude ranches, so he has no clue what it means to serve in the military. To him that vote meant nothing. It isn't his ass on the line. I'm glad these vets are speaking up and holding creeps like Felix accountable. It's about time.

[Frances]

26. The Repubs ran an ad with Max Cleland morphing into Osama

and Cleland was then defeated by a chicken hawk (Georgia Senatorial Race in 2002).

Now that was an outrageous ad.

The Republicans wore bandaids at the Republican National Convention to make fun of an honest-to-God hero's wounds.

Now that was outrageous.

The Repubs can dish it out, but they can't take it. They are bullies and cowards.

[emmadoggy]

27. Ok, this may be a dumb question...

But the article seems to present the issue as a "he said, she said" case. In other words it's VoteVets' word against Allen's and that the VoteVets ad is inflammatory. I don't doubt the accuracy of VoteVets claims at all, but isn't there some record or proof available to back up what they are saying - in regards to exactly what types of protection the soldiers were provided, how many received type A, type B etc.?

Personally, I thought the ad was fantastic - hard-hitting and powerful - and EXACTLY what these bastards deserve. I hope millions of people all over the US see ads like this. :evilgrin:

[Jai4WKC08]

29. The ad itself

Runs the number of the senate bill amendment that Allen (et al) voted against. Makes it part of the Congressional record and easy for any citizen to look up on the internet, or at their nearest library. There's not an ounce of "he said/she said" to it, and most half-way intelligent voters should be able to see that, even if they don't go to the trouble of looking it up for themselves.

If there's any wiggle room for Allen and the Repubs, it's that the record doesn't detail what equipment the amendment was designed to provide. But does it really matter? Obviously they did not have enough to do the job with the maximum protection possible. Can there be any doubt the Guard commanders would not have provided the new equipment if they'd had the funds?

Personally, I wouldn't care how precisely accurate it is. Accuracy has never been a factor in a single one of the GOP attack ads.

[emmadoggy]

33. Oh, I don't doubt the ACCURACY one whit...

I know that the ad referred to the senate bill that was voted down and that is part of the public record. My question is more about refuting what the Allen camp is saying per the article:

"Wadhams angrily denied the claim, saying the Defense Department issued none of the dark olive flak jackets used in the '60s and '70s in Iraq's desert environment."

My question is about where can one get information to refute this claim or to find out exactly what WAS provided? Again, I don't doubt or question VoteVets accuracy AT ALL.

And also, to clarify, I don't feel it's a matter of "he said/she said" but the tone of the news article came across to me that way. They offered no information or evidence proving or disproving either side's claims - such as the claim quoted above.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. Oh, I see what you mean

Geez, it's hard to imagine that it could be controversial at this point.

I know I've for a fact I've seen news articles about National Guard and Marine reservists not having received the newer body armor. One was in AZ, because I got involved in helping some folks contact the units and make donations. It would be "better" (more effective) if we could document someone in VA, altho that really shouldn't be necessary. I also seem to remember articles about the contractor being WAY behind in delivering the plates. Wasn't that what the whole "you go to war with army you have" bullshit from Rumsfeld was about?

When it comes down to it, I think this could end up like the swiftboat ads. You play 'em over and over enough, so that everyone sees them, repeatedly, and no matter how many protestations Allen's people may make that they are not true, most people will believe them anyway.

[emmadoggy]

36. Yes, I agree.

These ads need to be seen far and wide, and over and over. People WILL get it, especially if they see it enough.

Thanks for your input on my questions....As everyone is so fond of saying, "Google is our friend" and I found a slew of articles regarding the troops and body armor (ironically, the first one on the search results page was from Fox News :crazy: )

Again, thanks for your feedback. :-)

[gratuitous]

28. If Dick Wadhams (what a name) is pissed

Then the ad must be highly effective. Sorry Dick Wads, but truth is a defense, and your boy voted for death over life. Maybe if George Felix had ever served in uniform, instead of just posing in one, he'd have a better appreciation for adequate battlefield protection.

[malmapus]

30. Glad that ad touched a nerve with those repukes

Truth does hurt don't it.

[RamboLiberal]

32. Take the Vote Vets Ad Nationwide

Just got this email. I desperately want this ad to run against my state - PA - man on dog Senator Santorum who's trotting out every untruth he can against Casey.

Dear VoteVets.org supporter,

You are incredible! Since we unveiled this ad on Wednesday, which targets George Allen for voting against giving our troops the right body armor, donations have poured in fast and hard. On behalf of my fellow veterans, I thank you.

Reaction has been quick and strong, as well! DailyKos said it was the most compelling ad this cycle. MyDD.com gave it an A+. PoliticsTV said it is a "very well done ad spotlighting the difference between Sen.George Allen's voting record and his rhetoric."

You helped us hold accountable those that have failed the troops. Lets do it again.

As promised, we've been keeping track of all of your votes for where the ad should run next. There have been some really interesting picks. Some people hope we keep running in Virginia, some had other places they would like to run it, and someone wrote in that the ad should be run "Against all those !!"

I have a huge smile on my face, just knowing how enthusiastically you support the troops. Just don't ask me to take you all to dinner sometime - you've got expensive taste, and voted for some of the priciest places in America to run this ad! (And you gave us some BIG surprises too). But, we hear you, and agree with you, and we want to make this happen. We're going to need your help, though, if we're going to pull this off.

We have ads ready to go against every Senator who disgracefully voted to deny troops body armor, and if we're going to get this ad up where you'd like to see it, we are going to need to raise at least $50,000 by Tuesday.

Are you up to the challenge?

Please, send this email around to all your friends and family, and please consider making a donation. Get ready and strap yourselves in, this will be one heck of a ride!

Thank you for supporting the troops- and supporting the voice of America's 21st Century patriots.



Best Regards,

Jon Soltz
Iraq War Veteran
VoteVets.org

P.S. Still haven't clicked to watch the Allen ad? What are you waiting for?

[creeksneakers2]

34. I hated Republicans for their distortions of

John Kerry's votes and the ad by VoteVets.org is almost an exact copy of previous GOP ads. I can't feel morally consistent if I don't condemn both.

The problems with the troops getting body armor had nothing to do with money. $300 billion has been spent in Iraq and there has always been plenty of money for body armor. The problem was that the Pentagon didn't get around to supplying it for years. Also, Bush, who used body armor to make a major issue of Kerry's vote against funding for the Iraq War, never bothered to see that the troops got it.

Even though the attack ads are almost identical, their effects will be vastly different. Republicans don't object when their party smears opponents. Republicans see all of politics as a dirty game played to steal their money through taxes. They care no more about a lie than a person would if he fooled a robber by not telling him about the $500 hidden in the person's shoe.

Democrats see politics as a part of our great democracy we all share. Democrats don't like to see dirty tricks spoiling the great system. Democrats,and left leaning independents will be turned off by the ad because they'll see it as a dirty trick. They'll probably blame Webb for it. Republicans will love talking about the ad because they'll use it to justify their own slimy tactics.

We simply can't do back to Republicans what they do to us. If my party becomes as sleazy as the wingers, that's the day I find another cause.

I don't know where the group that ran this ad came from but I don't trust them. I'm not much of one for conspiracy theories but it all sounds like a Rove operation to me. The ad is suspiciously similar to Rove's ads.

[FrenchieCat]

37. So are you saying that Bush and Rummy sent our boys into war

with the army they had....which had all of the latest flak jackets for them all?

...cause that's not what I've been reading.

So now if a Democratic group makes an ad that's effective, it is automatically a "dirty" trick?

Please explain!

[creeksneakers2]

38. Please reread my post

I said that, because of the Pentagon and Bush, the troops went for years without body armor. That's the opposite of what you say I said.

Maybe I should have made why the ad is false clearer.

Whether the troops got body armor or not did not depend on the one Democratic amendment to an appropriations bill that Allen voted against. There was always enough money for the Pentagon to buy body armor. The amendment was to supply $1 billion for extra equipment, not specifically body armor or not just body armor.

The legislative process is full of games and its not clear what was going on with the amendment. Most people who are not wingers have the sense to realize that George Allen, or for that matter, any other professional politician, would not vote specifically against troops getting body armor. Nobody is going to believe this ad.

The writers of the ad distorted Allen's vote to make it look like it was specifically against body armor. The ad writers even tried to pull at people's guts by introducing the idea of troops dying for lack of body armor (which did actually happen many times) and distorting Allen's vote to link Allen with the troops who lost their lives.

If the unfairness of that isn't apparent then try comparing the GOP attacks on John Kerry that claimed he voted against body armor for our troops. John Kerry voted against a reauthorization of spending in Iraq that totaled $76 billion. Kerry had objections to the bill that had nothing at all to do with body armor. The Republicans looked at $76 billion worth of Iraqi war funding and pulled body armor out of that enormous pile. Then the Republicans ran ads that made it look like Kerry had voted specifically against body armor for the troops. Is that a dirty trick? I sure think it is. Its flat out dishonest.

I also wish you'd reread what I wrote because one of my major points is that the ad won't be effective, it will backfire. Republicans got away with what they did to carry because Bush voters don't care if their party lies. In fact, they think its great. Democratic and left leaning independent voters won't put up with lies though. I'm a lefty, and I see politics as part of our sacred national dialog which is the foundation of our democracy. I won't approve or vote for any candidate that fouls our national discourse with lies about his opponent. They can spin all they want, but this ad crosses the line.

George Allen is a RW extremist and there are plenty of good things to attack him with. No need to run an ad like this that is sure to backfire.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. "Sure to backfire"???

I doubt it. There's more than enought truth for it to stick, in that the amendment was specifically for Guard equipment, and it was the Guard that was sent into the war zone without what it needed. That's a fact, and it has nothing to do with neglect of personal protective equipment over many years, it had to do with the Bush rush to war without enough troops, such that he had to resort to activating reserve components who weren't prepared.

And no, votevets.org is definitely legitimate. It's the old IAVA, which grew out of Operation Truth. Wes Clark, Paul Hackett, Bob Kerrey and a number of Democratic veterans are on the board of advisors.

[rocktivity]

39. "This ad is deceitful and a lie," Allen('s) campaign manager...said...

Well, either Allen voted against the armor or he didn't...unless he voted against the armor BEFORE he voted FOR it...

VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz...an Army Reserves captain who served with the 1st Armored Division in Baghdad...said...that many in his unit were issued the Vietnam-era jackets, while others were given the vests for the modern system, but not the armor plates to insert in the vest to make it bulletproof.
Oh, I get it--the enemy is shooting the soliders full of holes over there so they don't have to come here!

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[agio]

41. notice he never denies this

"Landrieu's amendment died on a 52-47 vote with Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., and every other Republican voting to table Landrieu's bill."

[AZBlue]

43. If it's a lie, then give information on when/where he voted for equipment?

Well? We're waiting...