VoteVets.Org takes on McCain

VoteVets released a 30-second ad that targets the McCain camp to come clean on how they are going to support a long term presence in Iraq. Predictably, the response from the McCain campaign was quick and partisan as they sought to portray the attacks as a liberal smear job. VetVoice has the reply posted:

National Liberal Democratic groups are rolling out their strategy for the General Election. It appears that the politics of "hope and change" are euphemisms for even more vicious attacks than we've ever seen before. All the usual liberal suspects; MoveOn.org, the Democratic National Committee, The New York Times and others are adding to the efforts under way by VoteVets and are plotting to spend over $20 million to smear John McCain. A line has been drawn in the sand.

This is reminiscent of Melanie Morgan, hack queen pundit of the "You don't support Bush, You Don't Support the Troops" meme, who had a similar attack on VoteVets last year deriding the group for taking donations from various left-wing groups. Of course, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as her Move America Forward is in bed with big-money Freedom's Watch. Other pundits may liken this to some sort of "Swiftboat" campaign against the Senator, but Jon Soltz says McCain's military record is honorable in this AFP article. The skeezy politics involved cannot distract from the point of the ad which seeks an answer from McCain on his plans for foreign and defense policy with a troubled military and economy.

Hot Air called attacking McCain's "100 Years in Iraq" comment a "distortion". I give props to Hot Air because they tried to rationally dispute the claim, instead of calling the patriotism or "military credentials" of VoteVets into question. They retorted with the following:

the “100 years” comment isn’t a call for another century of hot war; it’s a projection of a token presence in a stable country along the lines of our “occupation” of Okinawa, one that certainly wouldn’t require the trillions of dollars being disingenuously tossed around here.

In response to that, the comparison of Cold War era bases in a stable country to bases in a country with an active insurgency is a bit foolhardy. Herschel Smith at the superb Captain's Journal has routinely questioned the need for bases in South Korea and Germany, while the nation fights two wars on extremism with an over-stretched military. I tend to agree with him. Most importantly, the fact that the military is at the breaking point has not been addressed by Sen. McCain (do we need a draft? more defense funding? fill us in on your master plan, sir). I only need to step outside my trailer in the IZ to understand this grim reality. Overuse of contractors, 55-year old reservists in uniform, active duty guys on their 3rd/4th tours, etc. Not that I'm bitching about my personal situation as a member of the military, but I'm quite concerned as a citizen about the future of our military as a whole. Sure partisan politics might be nasty business during an election year, but let's not stray too far from getting the McCain response to how, as commander-in-chief, he plans to support an enduring presence in Iraq with a military in trouble. While I do write at the Vetvoice blog (part of Votevets) frequently, I don't think I have political affiliation with the left or the right. I just want to see our military not all fucked up, but still able to win the Long War against Islamic extremism. I think it's a reasonable ad, IMHO. But I'll get off this proverbial soapbox and let you decide.



Flurry of controversy, just my style!