By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 2:57 PM
A group of Iraq war veterans have launched an ad campaign against several vulnerable Republicans, including Sen. Jim Talent. Labels: U.S._Senate_Race
VoteVets.org PAC's ad features Peter Granato, an Army Reservist who reportedly served in Iraq in 2003. In the ad, Granato fires an AK-47 into the type of vest many U.S. troops are wearing in Iraq. Bullets clearly pierce right through the flak jacket. Granato then shoots modern body armor, which stops the bullets.
Granato then points out that Talent voted against an amendment in 2003 to add $1 billion to the budget of the National Guard and Reserves for procurement of such equipment. The ad also says Talent later voted against another amendment which would have appropriated more than $300 million for body armor.
Almost identical ads are being ran against Republican Senators George Allen in Virginia, Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, and Conrad Burns in Montana.
UPDATE: Rich Chrismer, a spokesman for the Talent campaign, sent over this response:
"Senator Talent has been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America gave him the Lifetime Achievement Award and the Association for Service Disabled Veterans gave him their 2006 Patriot Legislator Award. These veteran groups don't endorse or give awards to people who don't support veterans."
The McCaskill campaign has not replied to our requests for comment on this (or any other) story.
12 Comments:
If you're looking for VoteVet's FEC filings, you won't find them unless you look under "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America." It also appears that a former John Kerry for Pennsylvania worker, John Stolz, is the treasurer of the project.
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Soltz, who is coordinating Pennsylvania veterans for Kerry, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of ducking military service in Vietnam, then tacitly supporting guttersnipe attacks on Kerry. Soltz said he believes such negative campaigning will backfire on Republicans."
Sounds like John's had a change of heart.
10/18/2006 3:34 PM
To clarify, it is "Soltz" as in the quote, not "Stolz."
10/18/2006 4:16 PM
Just because they say it, doesnt mean its so.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-politicalfix/2006/10/anti-talent-vets-group-to-unveil-tv-ad-campaign/
10/18/2006 4:24 PM
Claire McCaskill does not need to respond to this ad, because she did not pay for this ad.
The veteran group has the right to speak out about whatever the hell they want. The veterans have served this country to allow people like "Nia" to be free to make her comments in the United States of America.
Nia have you served this country in the Armed Forces and performed tours of duty overseas on a intense battleground with bullets, rockets, roadside bombs, and other military combats weapons coming at you.
I don't believe you have the right to ask Claire McCaskill, Jim Talent, or any other politician to stop veterans from voicing their opinions on commercials.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AFTER ALL...NIAKNOWS BETTER THAN TO ATTACK VETERANS THAT GIVE HER THE FREEDOM TO BE NIAKNOWS!
10/19/2006 8:12 AM
Freedom of speech, sure.
Lets just make sure people are telling the truth, alright?
Anyone who has been over in the sandbox knows the advertisement is a farce.
The jacket shown in the ad is one from the 80s and its missing the armor which was given out.
Maybe that type of flak jacket was given to the person speaking. If he served in Iraq during the time "body armor" was low it means he was in the back and was a cook or somthing else.
That doesnt even speak to the core issue of what the amendment was supposed to be about.
10/19/2006 9:07 AM
The FACT is......President Bush sent our men and women to war without adequate equipment and JIM TALENT supported the President in that decision by voting against funding to provide the protective equipment.
What really bothers me is TALENT touts that he has added 30 million to fund VA hospitals. He doesn't tell about the extra 100,000 war casualties that are utilizing those services and the other war veterans that are excluded because they were lucky enough to be re-employed.
10/19/2006 9:57 AM
"Lets just make sure people are telling the truth!"
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The Republicans fearless leader has not told the truth about the war in Iraq, Iran situation, North Korea situation, Foley situation, 911 terrorist attack, his service in the military, goal for America, connection to the Oil Industry, global warming, poverty in America, his real stance on immigration, his failed business ventures, or how he became the fearless leader in the first place.
Do we really want to act as though we expect the truth from politicians as citizens?
Most politicians are liars, crooks, thieves, split tongue snakes, consciousless, money hungry, self-serving, only come around at election time, good for nothing, attorneys (legal crooks that get paid for their time as crooks), overpaid, ruthless, and don't get me started.
Go open your eyes and see the world as it is.
The people that have the power to send soldiers to war lie all the time and you all want to attack the veterans that protect our butts. Stick it up your gluteus maximus buddy!
LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE. MAY VETERANS ALWAYS BE HONORED IN OUR HEARTS AND SOULS, WITH LOVE AND PROTECTION FOR OUR COUNTRY TO STAY STRONG!
10/19/2006 10:13 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10/19/2006 5:14 PM
What bothers me is that we are in another Vietnam.
What bothers me is that both parties have a legislative history of deferring to the President when it comes to matters of War.
Congress has given up its power to declare war for the purpose of leaving the responsibility in the Executive Branch. This way either party can attack the President thus further their own goals during an election season. If Congress took a hardline position then they might loose their job. Why? They would be responsible for their actions! Instead they can attack the President for his decisions thus garner support for re-election.
Both parties have done this, yet we need the Democrats to take action, now.
We need the Democrats to step up and enact a Constutitional Amendment reaffirming the War Powers Act thus giving it real power. The President should not be able to send troops overseas for long amounts of time without the Declaration of War. Congress is completely unable to stop the War in Iraq because they will appear anti-troops or anti-national security. This is why we need clear guidelines for how our troops go overseas. We can no longer allow our Executive Branch to usurp a power which was traditionally intended for Congress.
The American people need to stop being distracted by stem cells, abortion, the culture wars, or flag burning because the unrestricted power of an Executive Branch is the biggest threat to our Freedom. All of these issues are distractions to get your vote and distract you from the truth that Congress is not doing their job.
Nancy Pelosi: make your move!
10/19/2006 5:23 PM
duckworth, you wouldnt know Vietnam if it bit you in the rump.
Facts are facts, and I have yet to see anyone present anything contrary to what really is happening in Iraq.
How do I know? I talk to Iraqis and many of the soldiers who are there.
Their story is the complete opposite of what I am reading here.
You want opening of eyes? Go read some of the mil blogs and talk to people who are fighting there.
I make it a point to do so because it by passes the partisan talking points I read from many of you guys.
I might also add that if you read that link I posted - someone posted a reference to factcheck.org which completely dispells its myths.
So yes, open your eyes to the truth. The problem is, it isnt your truth, its somthing completely different and that is why you cannot accept it.
I will admit that Iraq has a similarity to Vietnam in that the media is dedicated to aiding our enemies and our defeat.
The problem is this time, if we let them win, they will follow us home and it will cost us dearly.
Those my friends, "are the facts"
10/19/2006 9:09 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10/20/2006 10:22 AM
What are you saying about the "truth in Iraq."
Iraq is not a guerrilla war? Civil War is not already occurring or about to happen? Nouri al-Maliki cannot get a hold of the situation? Maybe if the Iraqi's infrastructure was improved in 2003 they might never have took up arms? Yes, how about a real Marshall Plan for Iraq? Maybe if the Iraqi army wasn't disbanded we would have an actual security force? Do you think if we secured the Iraqi borders the foreign fighters would have been denied entry?
How about we finished our job in Afghanistan? Maybe if the sent the 10th Mountain Division in to kill Bin Laden, instead of the Northern Alliance, we would have gotten him. Maybe we should have used Chemical Weapons in Tora Bora thus have had no friendly casualties. President Bush: good job at Smoking out those Terrorists!
Its interesting that the right wing is supposed to be "ready for War" yet they do it half-ass.
We are far more insecure now than ever before. Rather than directing the full economic and military might inside Iraq, through a military containment and Marshall Plan, we have been basically doing half-ass urban warfare and oil extraction. If we secured the country completely and built it up heavily as in Japan or Germany, the situation would be drastically different.
Our situation in North Korea is simply wonderful. The Bush Doctrine has obviously failed as preemptive war did not occur. Bush's policy of preemptive war obviously only works against weak nations. According to his doctrine, we should have taken action before North Korea ever had nuclear weapons.
This administration has failed across the board. We will be either be in Iraq until 2010 or we will withdraw and there could be a large regional war.
10/20/2006 10:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home