Iraq Vets Want Debate on Iraq not 'Nam
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 09-04-2004 - 3:13am |
by Mark Egan
NEW YORK - Iraq war veterans on the sidelines of the Republican convention say they are sick of the bickering over the Vietnam War records of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry and want a serious discussion of Iraq and veterans' issues instead.
"We want to force both candidates to give us some answers here," said Paul Rieckhoff, a platoon leader in Iraq and executive director of Operation Truth, which is lobbying to highlight the Iraq war as an election issue.
"Bush hasn't really given us a clear focus on how he's going to change things and Kerry hasn't given us a clear idea what he will do differently," he said.
Iraq war veterans on the sidelines of the Republican convention say they are sick of the bickering over the Vietnam War records of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry and want a serious discussion of Iraq and veterans' issues instead. 'We want to force both candidates to give us some answers here,' said Paul Rieckhoff, a platoon leader in Iraq and executive director of Operation Truth, which is lobbying to highlight the Iraq war as an election issue.
Several veterans' groups descended on New York during the Republican convention that nominated Bush for a second term. The veterans are attending debates, doing media interviews and lobbying politicians to offer more specifics about what to do in Iraq, where almost 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democratic senator, was pulling even with Bush among veterans in surveys after the Democratic convention in July when he highlighted his Vietnam War record. Polls suggest that subsequent attacks on his war record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group have cut his support among former soldiers.
Kerry has accused the Bush campaign of collaborating with the Swift Boat group, a charge the White House denies.
Bush refused to condemn the attack ads but said Kerry was "more heroic" than him during the war, when he served in the Texas Air National Guard. Some Democrats accuse Bush of shirking that responsibility, citing gaps in his attendance record.
"The emphasis on the Vietnam War is spurious and has taken away the focus from having a serious dialogue on the Iraq war," said Rebecca Smith of the bipartisan Veterans Institute for Security and Democracy.
"We feel veterans are getting short shrift."
In a tight election, both candidates have aggressively courted the nation's 26 million veterans. Kerry and Bush both spoke this week in Nashville, Tennessee, to the nation's largest veterans group, the American Legion.
Veterans have more basic gripes about the benefits they receive once they return home.
David Lemak, 57, a Republican delegate who served in the Air Force for 20 years, including three in Southeast Asia, supports Bush, but said, "There are some things that need to get taken care of in the next administration.
"The promise to our veterans out there is unlike any other one. It was made many years ago and it was a promise that if you come and serve our country, we'll take care of you for your lifetime. That's got to be honored," he said.
Veterans inside and outside the convention hall complained about the gradual erosion of their benefits, particularly health care, under both former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and his Republican successor, Bush.
"We need to know where veterans fit into the budget because we are creating new veterans every day in Iraq," said Smith.

Iraq Vets Want Debate on Iraq not 'Nam
Too bad John Kerry doesn't. He wants to do the same as George Bush in Iraq, only differently -- whatever that means.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
(from merriem-webster online)
discussion :consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
The troops in Iraq desreve the respect of us discussing this topic civily and respectfully.
If you do not, in good faith, wish to participate in this discussion, I respectfully request you refrain from posting in this thread in consideration of those who do.
Can we keep this discussion on track out of respect for those in service abroad?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry writing in the Washington Post, July 4th 2004
>>We have to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future.
On the economic front, that means giving them fair access to the multibillion-dollar reconstruction contracts. It also means letting them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together. In return, they must forgive Hussein's multibillion-dollar debts to their countries and pay their fair share of the reconstruction bill.
We should also give them a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region. As partners, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors. Such a conference would have two goals. First, it should secure a pledge from Iraq's neighbors to respect Iraq's borders and not to interfere in its internal affairs. And second, it should commit Iraq's leaders to provide clear protection for minorities, thus removing a major justification for possible outside intervention. Together, we should jump-start large-scale involvement with an international high commissioner to coordinate economic assistance and organize and implement these diplomatic initiatives.
Then, having taken these dramatic steps, we could realistically call on NATO to step up to its responsibilities. Our goal should be an alliance commitment to deploy a major portion of the peacekeeping force that will be needed in Iraq for a long time to come. Just as NATO came together to contain the Soviet Union and bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo, with the right kind of leadership from us NATO can be mobilized to help stabilize Iraq and the region. And if NATO comes, others will too.
Inside Iraq, the overriding need is for security, and the essential participants are the Iraqis themselves. The missing ingredient in this quest so far is a political accommodation among Iraqis. Each Iraqi group -- the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis -- has to feel it will have safety and a fair share in Iraq's future. Yes, let the Iraqis move forward with their schedule for elections and the writing of a constitution, but all must realize that the results of these elections and the constitution will hold only if the parties know they can protect their basic interests. Helping Iraq come together this way, by peaceful negotiations and not by civil warfare, is the realistic way to secure the loyalty of Iraqis to their new state, and the best way to give them a future to defend. And it will strengthen our efforts, and those of others in the international community, to overhaul the program to train and build Iraqi security forces that have the will and the capacity to fight against the insurgents and terrorists. In this context too, Iraqi reconstruction of Iraq with international assistance will have a chance.
Success in Iraq must be separated from our politics. It is too important to our troops who are serving there and to the security of our nation. <<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24762-2004Jul2.html