Human Right Campaign Calls Upon Democratic Hopefuls to Overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Friday marked the fourteenth anniversary of the enactment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. To mark the occasion, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) partnered with Servicemembers United (formerly Call to Duty), Log Cabin Republicans, Service Members Legal Defense Network and Liberty Education Forum, to host a three-day tribute this weekend. The event, “12,000 Flags for 12,000 Patriots,” took place at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where 12,000 flags were displayed -- each one symbolizing a discharged service member under DADT.

To raise awareness against DADT on the campaign trail in Iowa, the HRC kicked off its “Legacy of Service Tour” in Des Moines in June. "The eyes of the nation and the eyes of the world are on Iowa as we elect our next president," HRC President Joe Solmonese told the audience at the Iowa Historical Museum. The HRC’s mission to repeal the law and educate politicians and the public about the facts have been addressed on its web site.

Moreover, the HRC wants to put a face on the campaign by enlisting veterans directly affected by the policy. Sensing this new call to duty, a number of former service members have stepped forward to share how the DADT policy has negatively impacted their military careers and personal lives. This includes Marine veteran Eric Alva, who lost a leg in the Iraq War. Alva, who has become a spokesman for the “Legacy of Service Tour,” told the Des Moines audience: “I am a man who survived a war, a man who survived a battle, only to come home to another battle, and that battle is for equality.”

Nearly six month have passed since the kick-off event, and the HRC’s efforts to repeal DADT have flown under the radar on the presidential campaign trail. Not until last week’s CNN/YouTube Republican debate did the DADT resurface, albeit under suspicious circumstances, on the national stage.

Meanwhile, on the Democrat side, the HRC has taken a more proactive role in soliciting responses from the leading Democratic presidential candidates to the question: “If you are elected President, what concrete steps would you take to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?’” The candidates’ responses were posted last week on the HRC’s web site.

While all of the candidates promised they would repeal DADT, asserting the policy is outdated and discriminatory, only Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois provided concrete steps to overturn the law. Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Hillary Clinton of New York took the first step by initiating the overturn of the process, but fell short in providing a litany of concrete steps they would use to accomplish their objective. Dodd said he would call for a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draw up plans that would put an end to this policy within six months, whereas Clinton promised to work with high profile military leaders and retired military leaders who have called for the repeal of the law.

Although military leaders may share their insights as to what needs to happen, the DADT’s initial fate rests in the hands of the legislative branch, where the law was initially introduced and passed in 1993. If elected, Obama promised to work with Congress and place the weight of his administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1246), which repeals the current Department of Defense (DoD) policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, was first introduced in the House Feb. 28, 2007 by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. The amendment prohibits the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a member. Moreover, the amendment authorizes the re-accession into the Armed Forces of otherwise qualified individuals previously separated for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct. Thus far, 136 House members have cosponsored the amendment, including Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa.

“I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Obama said in a statement. “And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country.”

Obama promises to go even further, claiming the eradication of DADT will require more than just eliminating one statute. “It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination,” Obama said in a statement. “The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols.”

Joe Solmonese speaks at 12,000 Flags event



Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

Iowa Veterans Want More Than Lip Service from Presidential Hopefuls

For the veterans attending the Veterans’ Caucus Presidential Extravaganza earlier this month, the fighting didn’t end with their military service. Instead, they faced a new battleground upon discharge: their government.

“We want to be sure that those who served in harm’s way aren’t left behind on the battlefield,” said Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd (see pic), a U.S. senator from Connecticut. “The old line in basic training is you don’t leave a buddy on the battlefield. The battlefield doesn’t end when you return from the theater of conflict; the battlefield for our 24 million veterans is going on here today.”

The event was intended to raise money for veterans and provide Democratic presidential candidates a forum to share their platforms for vets. Dodd was the only presidential candidate who spoke at the event; other candidates sent high-level representatives. The Aug. 13 forum was supposed to be nonpartisan, but Dodd quickly established a partisan tone, which the rest of the speakers emulated in a blistering critique of the Bush administration’s neglect of veterans.

“I’ve spent four different occasions on the Senate floor just to get body armor for those serving in Iraq, only to be defeated every single time by the Republicans, who could not come up with the votes to support the body armor or compensate the families and communities who purchased body armor for their loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Dodd, a National Guard veteran. “The Don Rumsfeld line, ‘You don’t get the Army you deserve, you get the Army you got,’ reflects this administration’s attitude toward our young people, which they placed in difficult situations without even the most basic protection. This is deeply disturbing to me, and when I hear comments about how much they care and compare this with the actions of this administration, these words ring hollow.”

A number of veterans at the forum said they have grown tired of politicians paying lip service without ever producing results. They also feel the media have neglected their concerns. Joe Stutler, an Army veteran from Cedar Rapids, said he was looking for two things: honor and respect. “All the benefits in the world are available and possible, but not until Americans realize that without veterans, there is no America. Somebody has to defend us; we’re called and we go. There should be some honor and respect in that,” Stutler said in response to former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack’s solicitation for veteran concerns. Vilsack was speaking on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

“If Americans began honoring and respecting that service, there would be no talk of a draft, because people would be fighting to get in instead of clamoring around in an RV around the green zone in Iowa thinking that’s a patriotic duty,” Stutler added, before setting his sights on the media or in this case, the absence of the media. “I don’t see a room full of media here, but I saw it for labor, GLBT and minorities. Where’s the respect from Americans for veterans?”

Using this as his cue, Vilsack talked about Clinton’s new television ad about society’s “invisible” people, which had been released in Iowa earlier that day. “In essence, you are invisible, and one of the groups Clinton mentions in her new television ad is veterans. She really never believed that we would get to a point in this country where veterans are invisible, but that’s where we are at,” Vilsack said.

“I’m sorry there isn’t any media here, but there’s going to be a lot of money put behind that ad,” Vilsack said. “Every person in Iowa is going to be asking: What do you mean our veterans are invisible? And this will give you an opening to talk to your friends and neighbors.” While no members from the major media covered the presidential extravaganza, Clinton’s new ad was introduced at a press conference hosted by Vilsack, which merited not one or two, but three, articles in the Des Moines Register.

The forum’s speakers tailored their speeches to address veterans’ feelings of governmental neglect once they’ve fufilled their contracted service obligations. Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (see pic), who spoke on behalf of his father, Sen. Joe Biden, had this to say: “All of you veterans went over to war and served without talking about what you did and what medals you won. You came home and went about your business.” The younger Biden is a captain in the Delaware National Guard, which is scheduled to deploy to Iraq sometime next year. “But what you haven’t done is you haven’t forgotten. You’ve kept the covenant. Whether you were drafted or volunteered, it doesn’t matter; you did what your country asked for you.

“The first thing my father would do as president is honor the covenant you made, so you’re not caught like so many Korean and Vietnam veterans in between the greatest generation and this Iraqi war generation,” Biden said. “We cannot forget the people in the middle, and must honor all veterans of foreign wars.”

Speaking on behalf of candidate John Edwards, Major Gen. Youngman reiterated Edwards’ campaign platform of honoring "our sacred contract" with veterans. “Edwards believes we need to fully fund the VA, and the reason this isn’t happening is because of the annual dance that goes on in Washington,” Youngman said. “Bush sends over a VA budget that everyone knows is far from adequate, then we hear some speeches on the congressional floors, and then Congress adds a few amendments, then they turn around and send out campaign mailers saying they’re fighting for veterans in Washington.

“John Edwards understand there’s more to patriotism than waving a flag and sending somebody else’s children to war. He understands there’s more to taking care of our veterans than getting together with veterans for a photo opportunity,” Youngman said. “The mindset that has been in place since this war started is that a soldier expense has been treated as a labor expense, and it’s something we try to reduce. That kind of mindset says it’s OK for the secretary of Defense to send out letters of condolences to families, who just had the devastating loss of a loved one, signed by a signature machine.”

The presidential forum reached the emotional apex when New Mexico Gov. Richardson’s representative, Rick Bolanos (see pic), took the stage and shared his thoughts on his Vietnam War experiences and the Swift Boat Veterans, who disputed 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry's heroics in Vietnam. Along with his three brothers, Bolanos stepped up and volunteered to serve in Vietnam. They were the only four brothers in America serving simultaneously in Vietnam.

“When I saw people wearing purple heart band-aids, I thought to myself, that’s really cruel,” Bolanos said, before retelling a Vietnam War story. “While serving in Vietnam, my brother and I saw a young Marine fall down as he cupped his hand to his throat. When his hands fell down, we saw blood spurt from his neck. He fell and bled to death right in front of our eyes. When we asked the medic what happened, he told us that a small piece of shrapnel had severed his artery. What would this administration and the Swift Boat Veterans have said had he survived? Would they have denigrated his service if had come back and run for president of the United States?”

With his hands and voice trembling with emotion, Bolanos continued his story. “And what would this administration and the Swift Boat Veterans have said to my best friend, Mack, who I held in my arms as he looked up and said, ‘Rick, don’t let me die.’ For that one instant I wanted to exchange my life for his, and I was angry at my God for the first time, because I didn’t have enough hands to cover all the wounds he had to stop the bleeding.

“I ask you as a veteran, what would the administration and the Swift Boat Veterans have said had Mack come back and run for the president of the United States? This administration and these people do not have the right to pit one veteran against another. They don’t have the right to denigrate a veterans’ service, because not one of them -- not Karl Rove, not President Bush, not Dick Cheney -- ever answered their country’s call.”

'Our Second Call to Duty': Iowa Democratic Party Courting Veterans

The GOP has traditionally owned the military veteran vote. But if you were to ask anyone at last weekend’s Iowa Democratic Party Veterans' Caucus meeting, odds are you would get a different answer.

“As a patriotic American, I can't help but be a part of the Democratic Party,” said Joe Stutler, Army veteran and Linn Count liaison for the veterans caucus. “As a veteran, it bothers me greatly to see how our veterans and current military are treated in this country, and I would feel as if I left my brothers in arms behind in a hot zone if I didn't speak up and support them.”

Sensing Stutler is not alone, but rather, a microcosm of discontent regarding how veteran issues have been consistently ignored by politicians, the IDP formed the Armed Forces Veterans’ Caucus. One pre-Vietnam War veteran even went so far as to exclaim: “If you’re not an activist under the Bush administration, you need to be resuscitated.”

The immediate goal of the outreach group is to organize Iowa veterans and to elevate veteran issues during the presidential caucuses. "This is an historic time in our country, and I urge you to answer this 'second call to duty,'" says chairman Bob Krause. "Your country needs your involvement now as never before.”

The caucus is not only concerned about the current influx of veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also wants to make sure that those veterans who served in previous wars and peace-time duties are not forgotten. To bridge the multi-generational veteran factions, the group adopted the slogan, “Never shall one generation of veterans abandon another.” A few of the Vietnam and Korean War veterans in attendance not only voiced their concerns about the current problems and travesties facing the post-9/11 veterans, but also worry that their issues will be forgotten in today’s political discourse.

Democratic presidential hopefuls also have sensed a shift in veterans’ allegiances to the GOP and have been actively targeting veterans in and out of Iowa. Last weekend's meeting was attended by representatives from the campaigns of Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Time was allotted at the beginning of the meeting for the representatives to speak on behalf of their candidates. While the representatives from the Dodd and Edwards’ campaign went over their respective candidates' veteran talking points, Biden and Obama’s people used their experiences as military veterans to illustrate their support.

Presidential reps from Obama, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden campaigns join IDP Veterans' Caucus chair Bob Krause (center) at meeting in Riverside

Iraq War veteran Stephen Dunwoody, who is Obama’s deputy veterans outreach coordinator in Iowa, told how and why he felt personally connected to Obama. While working at a campaign stop in Davenport, Dunwoody was approached by a decorated Vietnam veteran, who saw his monthly veterans benefits cut from $2,300 to $800 a month when he was diagnosed with cancer. He wanted to talk to Obama, but given the size of the audience, Dunwoody couldn’t make any promises. Nonetheless, Obama ended up speaking to him personally and assured the veteran he would have his staff look into his predicament.

J.B. White, another Iraq veteran as well as Biden's national coordinator of veterans, summed up his support with a paraphrase from Biden: “If I had $10 and veterans needed nine of those dollars, I’m going to give them those $9.”

After all the campaign reps finished, Krause made it clear that all the Democrat hopefuls would be given an equal opportunity to submit their specific proposals to the caucus, which will publish them on its site.

The rest of the meeting was dedicated to discussing and revising the group’s charter, developing promotional and organizing efforts, and brainstorming ideas on how to boost membership. A sense of urgency pervaded the group as one of the members indicated, “We need to strike while the iron is hot.” Others, including Joe Stutler, shared this sentiment, “The rights and freedoms I knew in my youth are being eroded, and the current bunch running things seems to have forgotten about ‘We the People’,” said Stutler. “We feel an obligation to support those who sacrifice for our freedoms. Without those who served before us, us, and those who follow our boot prints, there would be no ‘We the People.’”

To learn more about or to join the IDP Veterans' Caucus, go to the group's website. The next meeting will be held in Des Moines on July 28 (go to site for details and to sign up).

No Exit: The Plight of Veterans’ Health Care

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation. --George Washington

For presidential hopefuls, Memorial Day serves as an opportunity to participate in memorial services and subsequent photo opportunities, while paying tribute to America’s fallen soldiers. This year was no exception, especially in Iowa, as politicians offered their support of the troops currently serving overseas. Now that the post-Memorial Day political dust has fallen, the question facing American voters is to what extent politicians support our troops, in particular, those veteran soldiers returning from the theaters of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where over 1.5 million Americans have served thus far.

Among these returning veterans, VA hospitals have seen a surge in health-related issues, both physical and psychological, that have far outpaced the funding provided by the federal government. Consequently, one of the biggest struggles between the Bush administration and veterans has been the fight over veterans’ health care policy. In 2006, Congress had to enact emergency legislation on two occasions to help supplement the VA’s budget by $1.4 billion to help bridge the funding gap. And it appears the 2007 budget is destined to fall short as well. In a study, “The Independent Budget,” coauthored by the DAV, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW concluded that:

Congress will need to appropriate $26 billion for veterans’ medical needs just to maintain current service levels. The Administration’s budget for FY 2007 seeks $24.7 billion in appropriations for veterans’ medical services, which falls $1.3 billion short of the IB’s recommendation. The President’s FY 2007 medical care budget slightly increases the mental health services capacity; however, it continues the hiring freeze of all other direct health care providers at a time when an influx of new veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will place substantial new demands upon a system already struggling to meet its mission. This budget proposal estimates that only 109,191 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will seek treatment in 2007. This reflects a decrease of 1,375 below the number of these new war veterans the VA estimates it will treat in 2006.

This years’ budget for veterans’ health care expenses is optimistic and assumes fewer vets will seek treatment, which puts VA medical facilities in a financial quagmire. While the presidential hopefuls preach platitudes of support for the troops and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, voters need to weigh how vigilante they are in supporting the effects these wars are having on the welfare of out troops and their families.

While stumping for veterans in Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama, who voted against the Iraq war supplemental funding bill, faced critics, who charged him with not supporting the troops. Obama responded that the best way to demonstrate support for troops is putting programs in place to support them. "When our veterans come home we want to do more than slap a yellow sticker on the back of an SUV,'' Obama said. “We want to honor their service with health care if they get hurt and support for their families.'' Obama noted in his speech to Iowa veternans that there is no comprehensive plan to prepare for a soldier's return and one-third of the troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological problems.

Obama’s Democrat rivals, John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton, also stumped for veterans in Iowa last weekend and addressed the need to focus more attention on veterans’ health care. All three of these candidates have addressed veterans’ health care issues on their campaign websites:

Barack Obama: “Honoring Our Veterans”

John Edwards: “Sacred Contract with Our Military and Veterans Community”

Hillary Clinton: “Fulfilling Our Promises to Veterans”

After perusing the rest of the Democratic candidates’ web sites, the only other candidate to specifically address veterans’ health care is Dennis Kucinich.

Of the GOP presidential hopefuls, the only candidate to address veteran’s health care issues on his website is John McCain ( “Commitment to America’s Service Members: Past and Present”), the only veteran among all the candidates running for president. Most of the GOP candidates have taken an aggressive, hawk stance on the war in Iraq thus far, however, only one of them is openly addressing the inevitable consequences of this stance, at least not on their campaign websites. Ironically, it’s these very same candidates who have attacked the Democrat hopefuls for not supporting the troops.

The Bush administration has drawn fire from both sides for not having an “exit strategy” before going to Iraq, and now, four years later, our wounded troops returning from the theaters of war are seeing that the same holds true on the this end as well.

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Stump for Vets in Iowa

Two of the Democratic presidential hopefuls, John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton, descended upon Iowa over Memorial Day weekend, crossing the state and pitching their support for Veterans. Although Sen. Joe Biden’s presence registered on Iowa’s political radar, in lieu of addressing veterans’ issues, he spent most of his time on the stump defending his support of the Iraq War supplemental funding bill. On the Republican side, there were no sightings of presidential hopefuls stumping for veterans in Iowa.

John Edwards’s campaign has become ubiquitous in Iowa and this weekend was no exception. Edwards unveiled his “Sacred Contract with Our Military and Veterans Community” and made this the focal point of his most recent Iowa tour:

“I believe in a sacred contract between our country and America’s veterans and military families. We must stand by those who stand by us. When our service men and women sacrifice so much to defend our freedom and secure peace around the world, we have a moral obligation to take care of them and their families.”

In a press release, Edwards provided an overview of the three cornerstones of his end of the contract, focusing on guaranteeing quality health care for veterans, supporting military families, and providing education and economic opportunities for civilian life.

While stumping for veterans in Oelwien, Edwards told a crowd at the Dancing Lion, “"We have a sacred responsibility to the men and women in Iraq. Every troop should be evaluated when they return to see what they want to do and make sure they can do it.”

One thing missing from Edwards’s stump speeches in Iowa, at least explicitly, was his “Support the Troops./Stop the War” campaign, which was scheduled to officially launch Memorial Day Weekend. The campaign’s intent was to reclaim patriotism by making the distinction between supporting the troops, while simultaneously criticizing the Iraq War and calling for its end, an act of patriotism. A large part of the reason Edwards may have stepped back from his call for Americans to “get vocal” and “get active” in opposing the Iraq War on Memorial Day is the criticisms targeted at his campaign on behalf of veterans groups:

Paul Morin, national commander of the American Legion, posted an open letter of the group’s website blasting Edwards for what Morin says is an inappropriate political calculation that “blatantly violated the sanctity of this most special day…Revolting is a kind word for it,” Morin wrote. “It’s as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone.”

For some veterans, Memorial Day is considered sacred and should not be politicized, whether explicitly or implicitly. This holds true for Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), who said his group is also planning to pen an open letter denouncing Edwards’s call to protest:

“Memorial Day is a solemn occasion to remember the service and sacrifice of more than 1 million American servicemen and -women who gave their lives to create our nation, to save our union, and to help free the world from tyranny. It is not a time to call people to protest the war under the guise of supporting the troops.”

Other veterans and their family members, however, said they support what Edwards is suggesting, saying the best way to honor the troops is to protest the war.

Ironically, Hillary took the stump in Iowa to defend her decision to vote ‘no’ on the Iraq War supplemental spending bill. Either way she votes, Hillary appears to be ensnared in a “catch-22” campaign quagmire. When not defending her vote, Hillary argued for increased spending on veterans’ health care, in particular soldiers suffering from severe head and brain trauma caused by roadside bombs:

"Many of them were coming back with a new problem, called traumatic brain injury. It could be up to 10 percent of all those who have been deployed."

After last week’s campaign memo leak suggesting the notion of bypassing Iowa in during the Democratic caucuses, Hillary reassured Iowans she’s still “In to Win”:

"I'm going to spend so much time in Iowa I'm going to be able to caucus for myself.”