The Outagamie County Republican Women held a forum for the WI-8 candidates tonight. The questions were excellent and there was an intensity befitting the fact that we are only one week from the primary. There was one item in particular though that I think stood out from the rest and not in a good way.
While making a point regarding the war in Afghanistan, Terri McCormick turned to Roger Roth and said that she took exception with something Roth had said because she has relatives serving in Afghanistan and they weren't "lucky enough to be in a hangar," during their tours. For those who don't know, Roth served in the Wisconsin Air National Guard, including three tours in Iraq.
If such a statement sounds bad when you read it here, I can only assure you it was worse to hear in person. The audience groaned and booed. Belittling the honorable contribution of military men and women who don't happen to be in the infantry is bad enough. To make this gaffe doubly stupid is the fact that on the point in question, McCormick had already won.
This particular exchange took place after all three candidates had an opportunity to answer the question of whether or not they would have voted for the recent Afghan war supplemental bill in congress. Roger Roth has stated elsewhere, and repeated tonight, that he would not have voted for this supplemental. A stance that is unusual to say the least among GOP primary candidates.
After this question had been answered by all three candidates, the next question was on education and went to Roth first. Roth spent most of the time for his answer on education re-hashing his position on the war supplemental quite passionately. He quickly added a brief response to the education question on the end of his answer. After this Reid Ribble answered the education question without addressing the war supplemental again.
Then McCormick got an opportunity to answer the education question, which she did, but then she pivoted toward Roth and launched into the war supplemental question again, including the line above that struck such a sour note with the audience.
As I mentioned, Roth's stance on the war supplemental means that he would not have voted to fund the troops in the field because of what he sees as a failing strategy being pursued by the Obama administration. I'm not convinced that this position will resonate with GOP primary or general election voters. Therefore, I don't see any reason why McCormick felt the need to bring this up again.
If asked, I suspect McCormick would argue that she is never one to shy away from a tough position. She would have been well advised in this case to shy away from remarks that demean the valuable service of many members of our military who serve in non-combat roles.
I am willing to acknowledge that given time to reflect McCormick, would likely not agree with her own remarks and that it was the pressure and time constraint of a live forum that contributed to her statement. She could take the first step toward proving me right and offer an apology to Roger Roth.
7 comments:
Jeremy.
I was also there last night. I guess in Terri's eyes, navy personnel assigned to ships, those conducting force security operations in Kuwait, R&R Centers in Qatar, redeployment bases in Kyrgyzstan, and the hundreds of thousands of U.S Servicemen and women not assigned to a combat role, have contributed nothing to the war effort. I think that those veterans and their families would disagree since hundreds of them have died in suicide attacks and mortar fire while never leaving base.
I served as an Infantry Officer in Iraq in 2005-2006. And Afghanistan in late 2006. I have been to Joint Base Balad where Airman Roth was stationed on 4 occasions. It was called "Mortaritaville" for a reason. It took more indirect fire than any base in Iraq, including the Green Zone.
I found the comment disgusting. But just as disgusting was the comment by Harold Grimes, McCormick's vet coordinator who said afterward "good for Terri, its about time someone challenged Roger on his service" Veterans attacking the service of other veterans for political gain?
Lastly, I take issue with the claim of the McCormick and Ribble campaigns...and with your post. Read the 2010 War Supplemental Bill that Roth said he opposes. It was not to pay for "troops in the field" or current operations. It was to fund an additional 30,000troops (training, transportation pay and allowances)for President President Obama's troop surge which was not in the 2010 budget passed in 2009. Roger's point is well taken by many veterans. Why vote to support 3/4 of what the ground commander wanted, for 18 months, knowing that a properly conducted counterinsurgency fight may take troops strengths over 100,000 soldiers or more years. Basically you are paying to have 30,000 military personnel getting shot at for 18 months, which you will have little to show for at the end.
Roger has been clear, give the commander what he requested with no timeline and he will support it.
Jeremy, I think Terri was upset that she got caught saying she would support a bill she failed to read.
From the Congressional Research Service:
In February 2010, the Administration requested $35.1 billion in supplemental funds for DOD and State/USAID to pay for the cost of the December 2009 decision by President Obama to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, bringing total troop levels there to 98,000 by the fall of 2010. A FY2010 supplemental is necessary because the decision to add troops was made in December 2009 after the Administration submitted its regular request in May 2009.
Some 94% of this funding to cover primarily incremental war-related costs, that is, costs that are in addition to DOD’s normal peacetime activities. These costs include military personnel funds to provide Military personnel funds to provide special pay for deployed personnel such as hostile fire or separation pay and to cover the additional cost of activating reservists, as well pay for expanding the Army and Marine Corps to reduce stress on troops and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds to transport troops and their equipment to Afghanistan, provide in-country support bases, and repairing war-worn equipment.
Again this bill paid to put troops in theater, not to pay for operations being conducted.
Both Teri and Reid have said they oppose a timeline for withdrawal, however, the troop surge that this bill paid for came with a timeline.
How can they defend that? They wrap themselves up in the "I support the troops" banner and hope no one points out the hypocrisy.
Does anyone have this on video? I'd appreciate seeing it.
I am sure some will surface.
The point is a simple one. Funding for the troops should never be used as a tool to affect or leverage policy. If we allow this to happen there will be no end to policy differences among politicians and the troops we sent to war will be left without needed funding as we debate policy differences. On a related point Roger Roth claimed last night that he has served in Afghanistan which is not factually correct. Here is what really bugs me about Roger's apporach to this issue: We all have a soft spot in our hearts for any young man who puts on the uniform and stands up to defend this country. But we are also repulsed by anyone who tries to leverage their service for political gain. My ex father-in- law faught in the second world war and was wounded in combat. The first time I became aware of that fact was six years after I had been in the family. You see those who serve our country because it is the right thing to do never talk about it to gain personal advantage. Then there is John Kerry and the swift boat approach. We appreciate Roger's service to our country no matter what capacity he served as. But when Roger tries to use that experience to claim some higher ground in policy debates over what to do in the Afghanistan he loses credibility. I don't think Terry or Reid have any less concern for our troops or for our victory in Afghanistan because they have not personally served in the military. Nor do I think that Roger should be excused from scrutiny when he takes the same position on troop funding that Steve Kagen takes. Having served in Iraq does not make it any less unacceptable when Roger holds incompatible positions such as " we should not make the same mistake the Russians made when they left Afghanistan in a vaccum at the end of their war" while he also states: "We should defund the war and bring the troops home if we don't agree with how the war is being fought"
Above all we must commit that we will not do what the dems did throughtout this conflict and that is to play politics with the support of our troops. Politics should end at the waters edge. When we send our men and women to war funding them is a given and seperate from our other policy debates. Interestingly, last night two of the three candidates iterated that position. Sadly, the one who did not happens to be the only one who has served in the military.
The point is a simple one. Funding for the troops should never be used as a tool to affect or leverage policy. If we allow this to happen there will be no end to policy differences among politicians and the troops we sent to war will be left without needed funding as we debate policy differences. On a related point Roger Roth claimed last night that he has served in Afghanistan which is not factually correct. Here is what really bugs me about Roger's apporach to this issue: We all have a soft spot in our hearts for any young man who puts on the uniform and stands up to defend this country. But we are also repulsed by anyone who tries to leverage their service for political gain. My ex father-in- law faught in the second world war and was wounded in combat. The first time I became aware of that fact was six years after I had been in the family. You see those who serve our country because it is the right thing to do never talk about it to gain personal advantage. Then there is John Kerry and the swift boat approach. We appreciate Roger's service to our country no matter what capacity he served as. But when Roger tries to use that experience to claim some higher ground in policy debates over what to do in the Afghanistan he loses credibility. I don't think Terry or Reid have any less concern for our troops or for our victory in Afghanistan because they have not personally served in the military. Nor do I think that Roger should be excused from scrutiny when he takes the same position on troop funding that Steve Kagen takes. Having served in Iraq does not make it any less unacceptable when Roger holds incompatible positions such as " we should not make the same mistake the Russians made when they left Afghanistan in a vaccum at the end of their war" while he also states: "We should defund the war and bring the troops home if we don't agree with how the war is being fought"
Above all we must commit that we will not do what the dems did throughtout this conflict and that is to play politics with the support of our troops. Politics should end at the waters edge. When we send our men and women to war funding them is a given and seperate from our other policy debates. Interestingly, last night two of the three candidates iterated that position. Sadly, the one who did not happens to be the only one who has served in the military.
Again anonymous misses the point. Reid himself said "Reid Ribble himself...and I quote "Obama is not committed to winning"
Why would Reid Ribble vote to put an additional 30,000 troops into a conflict that he himself said we are not committed to winning? So they can sit there and die for the next 18 months with nothing to show for it? Is that how Reid supports the troops? Terri has compared Afghanistan to Vietnam. 35 billion to prolong that situation?
The 2010 Supplemental funded the surge troops deployment, not bullets and band-aids as the Ribble and McCormick are telling people in their phone calls.
Jeremy....Read the bill. If you need it ask and I will send it to you. This is to big an issue to get wrong.
Post a Comment