Each IAVA Congressional Rating is based on a given legislator's voting history on issues that affect US Troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and military families.

To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.

Since so many of you have a hard time understanding that Lynn doesnt support the troop, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll221.xml this will take you to the tally of votes for (H R 1815) which would have extend free health care to all Reserve and National Guard soldiers while on active duty. As you can see. Lynn voted AGAINST this legislation. Once again IAVA is a non partisn group. From their page "No matter how you feel about the war, Americans have a moral obligation to support those who served."

You state "H R 1815) which would have extend free health care to all Reserve and National Guard soldiers while on active duty."

Unless alot has changed since I was in, don't active Guard and Reserve soldiers have free healthcare? They used to go to the same clinics and hospitals on base that I did, or have access to CHAMPUS, not TRICARE.

Is this about their families? I thought they were covered under TRICARE when their sponsor was activated.

Maybe they could not support this ammendment:

9. H.AMDT.214 to H.R.1815 An amendment numbered 26 printed in House Report 109-96 to express the sense of Congress that the President should develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, and submit this plan to the congressional defense committees.
Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] (introduced 5/25/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Woolsey amendment (A009) Failed by recorded vote: 128 - 300 (Roll no. 220).

Maybe some of the amendments killed it like stopping some base closures that are needed.

H.AMDT.213 to H.R.1815 Amendment sought to postpone the base realignment and closure process until 1 year after a number of studies are completed and until 1 year after the troops have returned home from the Iraqi theater.
Sponsor: Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] (introduced 5/25/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Bradley (NH) amendment (A008) Failed by recorded vote: 112 - 316 (Roll no. 219).

Nice that the IAVA supports those ammendments, but a Republican that supports the President gets an F.

Something tells me another bill passed without garbage added! How HONEST.

As for H.AMDT 214- we need to be out of Iraq. As the poll in Army Times has stated roughly 70% of soldiers deployed say we need to be out within the year.

and for H.AMDT 213 proposed by Republican Jeb Bradley. If the president would get his head out of his ass, stop listening to Closeted meth snorting pastors he might be all right. I also have a question for you. " why is it when Bush mispeaks its funny/clever but when Kerry does it people are up in arms?"

Well from your response, I guess you are very bitter.

No one wants base closings, but businesses streamline all the time.

As for the president submitting withdrawal plans to Congress, not thier job to be commander in chief. Did I miss the memo about soldiers voting on wars, damn things have changed.

Look - all I ask is that if you post something as 'research' or 'facts' mke sure it passes the "does it make sense" test. Even I can see a problem here:
IAVA 'grades'-

Georgia Republicans:

Senator Saxby Chambliss D-
Rep. Nathan Deal C-
Rep. Phil Gingrey C-
Senator Johnny Isakson F
Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland F

Georgia Democrats:

Rep. John Lewis C
Rep. Cynthia McKinney D+ (ousted, obsolete information)
Rep. David Scott A-

New York Notables:

Democrats:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton A-
Senator Charles E. Schumer B+
Rep. Charles B. Rangel B-
Rep. Jerrold Nadler B

Republican:
Rep. Peter King C+

What all of these people DO have in common is none of them support the legalization of marijuana. For those of us with chronic pain and damaged liver - we think they are ALL wrong about that.

Stirring the pot -
MainFrame

Good Job not actuall looking at the voteing record, but rather the letter next to the name.

How convenient that the site chooses very selective criteria to make the real supporters of our military look bad and the liberals look good. If you believe the conclusions of that study, then you're obviously mentally challenged. If you don't believe it, then quit trying to deceive people with the site.

The IAVA simply points out which Congressmen vote for such things as body armor for troops, expanding health care for National Guardsmen, etc.

The fact that many Republicans did not vote "yes" on these matters only goes to show that Republicans do not, in fact, support the troops.

Feel free to keep waving your little American flag and think otherwise, Woody.

I guess they must since voting against that and requiring the President to submit retreat plans gets you an A!

...Probably, since you want to belittle someone who respects it. Look basmati, despite your little arrogance, I'll match my brains and accomplishments against yours any day.

The Democrats rob military spending for social programs, fight against counting military ballots, give encourgement to the enemy to hang on which results in more American casualties, they ridicule American forces as stupid, call soldiers baby killers, rapists, and terrorists, your buddy "loathes the military", they vote against every major defense program, give military technology secrets to the Chinese, they appease our enemies, and cannot be trusted with national defense. Factor that into your little formula and see how the results come out.

"Feel free to keep burning your little American flag and think otherwise."

*laughing* Once again, I get my patriotism questioned because I dare to stand up to an extremist. Geez Woody, that is sooooooo 2004.

Three days, buddy. Three days and you and your Swift Boat smearbuddies are history. Your smears, like your ideology will be washed away and made clean by the coming Democratic tide.

Put away your jackboots, little man, there will be no American Reich in your lifetime.

Did you have an argument to make or do you just always make personal attacks?

I agree with the MajorDude and Woody on ONE thing - you are a rude dude with few ideas and litte to no facts to present.

You are embarrassing the liberals with ideas and facts who blog here.

By the way - the Army Times did NOT call for the ouster of Dummy Rumsfield - they are rumored to be considering printing an editorial asking for his resignation.

We have plenty of facts on our side. Present them and tell people why you are a liberal - they will either see your side and agree or they will not. That goes for the right wingers too! Stop with the hate-mongering - you give us a bad name.

Smoke some pot-
MainFrame

Army Times calls for Rumsfeld's departure
POSTED: 4:55 p.m. EST, November 4, 2006

CNN Article

"Army Times' Calls for Rumsfeld to Quit", NPR

Army Times says Rumsfeld must go", Capitol Hill Blue

By the way, it's not a rumor anymore. Here's the article

Hi bad_ptc, my problem is that we need to distinguish between and editorials and 'hard' news. It's just a pet-peeve.

CNN: "Army Times calls for Rumsfeld's departure"
NPR: "Army Times' Calls for Rumsfeld to Quit"
Capitol Hill Blue: "Army Times says Rumsfeld must go"

None of them say anything about it being an EDITORIAL? It would be easy to do.

As a former journalism major (who saw the light and went to tech)- that's what's known as a 'slant'. Slants don't help when trying to build credibility.

There may actually be Four Military Publications with editorials asking for a resignation.

For the record, it was still a rumor when I first posted. I certainly never said it was 'wrong' since I am happy to read it.

A 'hard copy' of The Army Times is slated for release Monday, Nov. 6th. I assume the others will be out then too.

Regardless, it would be nice to see him resign!

Thanks for the update!

Stirring the pot-
MainFrame

That's one of the reasons I try and read as many sources as I have time to.

You can't get the straight shinny from any one source, unless you happen to see it with your own eyes.

Even then, most people can't even give an accurate description to a police officer when they do see it with their own eyes.

One of the oddities of human nature.

I couldn't agree more. I would suggest something from the left, the right and the middle - if you can find it.

Science teaches us that instruments are more reliable than your own senses (which are easily fooled). Magicians make a killing proving we are poor observers every day

Just stoaking the pot

MainFrame

Let's review:

Ole woody made a comment in his intial post that anyone thinking liberals meant well was "mentally challenged".

I responded, showing him the error of his ways and urged him to keep waving the flag.

Woody makes a post entitled "Basmati Hates The American Flag".

I laugh at his extremism.

You, MainframeCPU, come in nattering about how uncivil I am.

May I kindly suggest, MainframeCPU, that you take your situational outrage, shine it up real good, turn it sideways and stick it where the sun don't shine? Please?

I think you just made my point better than I could. Thanks dude. Although your invitation is exciting - I really don't have any desire stick thing in my butt. Tacky.

Woody and Major will show the anger and immaturity if you let them - those who see it will be turned off and give you an ear - instead though - you let them play your emotions like a violin. Relax dude.

If indeed you are liberal, you have intelligence and truth, compassion and reason on your side - use them. It's just a blog - state facts - explain your opinion - leave the personal attacks out of it.

Don't you know where the term 'knee-jerk liberal' comes from?

Just my two cents worth-
MainFrame

basmati ...computerboy said he was just here to "stir the pot". Let him have his fun. He is kind of entertaining.

He is sort of like the retarded thug kid Dahmer Jr. in my neighborhood.

Okay - that hurt a little bit skyspy. Thanks?!?

ArmyMajorRetiredDude:

You have expertise in this area so I want to ask you something sincerely.

If there was one thing you could change about the war in Iraq - stratagy wise - what would it be?

Do you think the stratagy has changed? Do you think it should have?

Just teaching the lot-
MainFrame

Hey man I wasn't trying to hurt feelings. You said you were here to "stir the pot" which I think is great.

The brat worthless kid that we call DahmerJr. in our neighborhood is also basically trying to "stir the pot" in his own way.

You are more entertaining than that brat and much less destructive. In fact you have contributed much to the blogs here.

Thank you. You are like a mini muddle, you make us stop and think...and I like it.

is hard.

Here is one example. We shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi Army.

# 1 Many of them just melted away, shed uniforms and blended in with the population.

# 2 If we had locked them down in barracks, there could have been riots or some generals trying a coup.

# 3 They would have been the same soldiers that supported Saddam. The people might not have trusted any reforms or voted.

The one thing that I would have done, is sealed the borders with Syria and Iran!

Not backing off of fallujah the first time.

Putting Al Sadr in prison and disbanding his militia.

Again, with 20/20 hindsight it is easy. those moves could have just as easily worked.

Of Course the U.N. bugged out and abandoned any assistance that could have helped stabilize the area. Maybe cut off all funding, pull out of the UN and kick them out of the US.

Prosecute any newsman and leaker of classified information.

Not send a Democratic operative to Niger.

Pull all funding from Turkey for screwing up our warplan and keeping the 4th ID out of the fight.

Sensor news coming out like the US did in WWII, of course back then Earnie Pyle and the correspondents wanted us to win!

Okay Basmati - this is what I ws trying to say - now you have several statements from Major that show he would have done SOME things differently - albeit in hindsight.

Two things arrise from this:
1)Major is not a lamb being led to slaughter
2)We can all agree things could have been done differently

Honey always works better than vinegar

Stirring the pot-
MainFrame

Not if you're trying to clean out a fishing cooler or refrigerator.

Vinegar can clean glass too.

Vinegar is also a better fabric softener for towels as it doesn't degrade the water absorption properties of the material.

Just stirring.

I'm freaking dizzy already.

Are you sure we are on the same side politically?

As much as I bite my toungue with the extreme "right wingers" and extreme "left wingers" on here....... Now I got you spinning me in the middle....geez!

H.AMDT.209 (A004)
Amends: H.R.1815
Sponsor: Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] (offered 5/25/2005)
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
So to get an A the Republicans would have to vote for an ammendment that would REQUIRE military hospitals overseas to perform abortion for a fee!

If you are Pro-life, you must vote against that.

"Amendment sought to allow military personnel and their dependents overseas to use their own funds to obtain abortion services in overseas military hospitals.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 12 printed in House Report 109-96 to lift the current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas."

Maybe they could not support this ammendment:

9. H.AMDT.214 to H.R.1815 An amendment numbered 26 printed in House Report 109-96 to express the sense of Congress that the President should develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, and submit this plan to the congressional defense committees.
Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] (introduced 5/25/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2005 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Woolsey amendment (A009) Failed by recorded vote: 128 - 300 (Roll no. 220).

Like John Kerry's favorite dance of voting for the budget then voting against the funding because a tax cut was ammended to it. You can support the troops and vote on another bill without poison pill ammendments.

Nice try, thanks for playing.

Actually IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. But nice try.

One more thing...Lynn Westmoreland was given an "F" but John Kerry (our troops are stupid) was given a "B." LOL Now, what does common sense say about that? What a joke. No wonder the Democrats lose so much. They believe this stuff. Their best hope this election has been to conceal their "secret plans" to get our of Iraq...hoping to keep people in the dark long until just past the elections, when we better pray for America's security.

First off if you actualy believe that is what he intended to say, than you need more help than i can offer. Yes a vietnam vet (who actually served in combat) who volunteered, after graduating from Yale, is implying that soldiers are stupid. And as for you "secret plans" isnt that what James Baker is doing by refusing to release the contents of his assesment with Iraq till after the election?

Okay dude - you are now defending Kerry - that would mean you have lost the argument already.

For God's sake - even the Democans are condeming him - hell, even I did!

James Baker in all his glorious ignorance wasn't the nominee for the Republicrats for President of the United States last election.

Ughhh..... the democans elected Clinton who actually smoked dope in Russia but didn't inhale twice in place of going ion the military...so let's not play who served and who didn't. Kerry has 30 years of this crap.

Next you will tell us what a great driver the Kennedy's are and how Nixon didn't mean to press 'erase'. by the way - I hope that reuter doesn't refer to the UK newspaper ... if so, you are more lost than even I suspect.

Am I the only third party supporter on this blog????

Vote third party -

MainFrame

Git Real why don't you. Doesn't the fact that there are no Republicans on your IAVA website tell you that perhaps there is a biased agenda meant to slam Republican's? I checked your site out and it obviously does not represent the majority of veterans that served in Iraq & Afghanistan. Lynn gets an "F" for a whole bunch of issues but his support of our troops is not one of them.

I would like to invite you to prove me wrong. IAVA is not a politically motivated organization. It has one goal in mind. To support the troops and veterans who support this great nation. And to clarify since you obviously didnt pay much attention. At no point did i say no republicans were on the site. I said that no republican got an "A" rateing (based on their own voting record) Your right, the majority of troops/vets currently serving enjoy haveing a lack of body armor, a lack of armored vehicle. They like waiting months (or in my case) a year for phyisicals to be scheduled by VA. Im not sure how you base Lynn's support for the troops. Now if you base it upon empty rhetoric and no action, then i would have to agree. He truely supports the troops. But if you base his support by judging his actions as a represenative and his voting record then i have to say you are sadly wrong.

Who started this organization and where does it's support come from. Who is in charge of rating the support our troops get from congress.

If I have time later I will study that site more indepth. But my first 15 minutes of study appeared to support my accusations.

There isn't any negative material being sent out by McGraw, why would an Incumbant in the Majority Party in a Red State do that? I think it's because he knows something the rest of us doesn't. He's afraid McGraw might win.

We have a fine Constitution as written. Do they want to raise lower taxes? That should take about a week. Are there any Judges etc that need voting on? Again not much time.

The less Congress does, the better of we all are.

In case you haven't been reading lately, the tax system needs to be overhauled. Whether it be the proposed "Fair Tax" or whatever, you decide.

The Social Security system and Medicare are schedule to crash around 2015 and they have done nothing in Congress to fix it.

Corruption is strong, a la lobbyist Jack Abramoff et al, and Congress decided to pass the weakest ethics proposal on the table.

The cost of healthcare is going through the roof.

Should we go on?

Way too much. Why should I have to pay for Maternity Care in my family's health policy? Doesn't matter that no kids are in sight. Why should I have to pay for possible drug addiction costs? I don't do drugs, and never will.

SS reform was proposed recently, it was dropped like a hot potato. The Dems want to do away the present tax cuts that are boosting the economy. Why does it (tax code) have to be tweaked every year? I'll tell you why, to keep the Lobbyist in business. You guys keep believing they need to do something, and they'll keep enjoying the fat of the land from the Lobbyists.

I would love to see the fair tax, but forget it. The Dems can't even talk about it without outright lying. Plus, it would do away with the Lobbyist and we can't have that.

I stand by my statement, the less they do, the better off we are.

I agree with McDonoughDawg. Your idea is very Libertarian. Unfortunately, Republicans aren't Libertarians any more than Democrats are Libertarians. Your statement that Dems lie about the fair tax can be equally applied to Republicans. As one of my proud Libertarian friends likes to say, "Every good idea a Republican ever had came from a Libertarian." Republicans use Libertarian ideas as propaganda in order to solidify wealthy business donations and support. The Flat Tax, and or the Fair Tax, has been thrown around for years in campaign memorabilia by Republicans yet they’ve taken no serious steps to implement it. The good news Libertarians is that in this race Both Candidates can be described, and I believe they are, Fiscally Conservative. There is a new Democratic Party rising up from within the Southern Democratic ranks that is very Libertarianesk.