For years, some have suggested that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be costly not just because of the wars themselves, but because of the condition of our returning veterans. This recent AP study shows that the numbers are staggering. The GOP is always eager to fight wars, but less keen to pay for expenses like this for vets.
A staggering 45 percent of the 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now seeking compensation for injuries they say are service-related. That is more than double the estimate of 21 percent who filed such claims after the Gulf War in the early 1990s, top government officials told The Associated Press.
What's more, these new veterans are claiming eight to nine ailments on average, and the most recent ones over the last year are claiming 11 to 14. By comparison, Vietnam veterans are currently receiving compensation for fewer than four, on average, and those from World War II and Korea, just two.
It's unclear how much worse off these new veterans are than their predecessors. Many factors are driving the dramatic increase in claims — the weak economy, more troops surviving wounds, and more awareness of problems such as concussions and PTSD. Almost one-third have been granted disability so far.
Scott Ostrom served four years as a reconnaissance Marine, deploying for two tours in Iraq. Now 27 years old, he suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Since being honorably discharged from the military he has struggled to maintain healthy relationships or keep a steady job. But the most difficult thing for him has been coping with his chilling memories of Iraq, and what they mean for him going forward:
The most important part of my life already happened. The most devastating... Nothing is ever going to compare to what I've done, so I'm struggling to be at peace with that.
Craig Walker of the Denver Post is set to receive a Pulitzer Prize in Feature Photography for his photo essay, entitled "Welcome Home," which documents Scott Ostrom's life as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The photos, and accompanying captions, provide a sobering reminder that the cost of war is measured in more than lives, dollars and poll numbers. I encourage readers to view the photo essay here.
As of April 2012, 6,422 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and 47,545 have been injured in combat. Countless more, including Scott Orstrom, suffer from post-traumatic stress.
Between 106,000 and 116,000 Iraqi civilians and 12,793 Afghan civilians have been killed have been killed. Thousands more have been injured; millions more have been displaced.
The next time our leaders consider sending American troops overseas, be it for promotion of American values or cynical national interests, they should think about Scott Ostrom. I challenge anyone to look at "Welcome Home" and, with a straight face, tell me that the invasion of Iraq was worth it.
Read the rest of this post...
Geraldo Rivera took to the airwaves of FOX News Friday morning for the purpose of giving his take on the Trayvon Martin case, quickly turning it into a racially-charged tirade against hoodies:
When you see a Black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation... [Trayvon Martin] didn't deserve to die. But I bet you money, if he didn't have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn't have responded in that violent and aggressive way.
Victim-blaming in this nature is inexcusable. Rivera is arguing that if George Zimmerman in fact did act in a malicious and racially-motivated fashion his actions would be understandable because, "hey, we're ALL afraid of black kids in hoodies, right?" Apparently it's unreasonable to expect someone to resist their xenophobic impulses related to a person's clothing preference, but it's perfectly reasonable to tell kids that they should accept racism in our society and change what they wear out of fear for their safety.
Hoodies don't kill people, guns kill people. Wearing a hoodie shouldn't put your life at risk, and wearing one does NOT make you responsible for someone else's racially charged violence.
Read the rest of this post...
A first principle regarding everything the right-wing throws up — If it's a multi-state effort, it's coordinated.
And if it's looks coordinated, look for the dirty fingerprints of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Who is ALEC? Our background is here. But if you want the short strokes, it's this.
ALEC is a secret-list members-only organization composed of two kinds of people, Republican state legislators and billionaire funders. The legislators get in for $50 per year. The billionaires get in for tens of thousands per year. That's how ALEC makes its money.
The billionaire individuals and companies pay ALEC to write laws and present them to legislators at "conferences" cum junkets. The legislators take the laws ("model legislation") home and introduce them as bills in as many states as possible. The rest is history, since in most cases, the billionaires can pay legislators to pass them. and governors to sign them as well. It's perfect vertical integration for the billionaires, and wonderfully efficient.
The ["Stand Your Ground"] legislation apparently preventing the successful prosecution of Trayvon Martin's killer was reportedly adopted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as model legislation that the shadowy group has spent years promoting across the country with the help of their allies in the National Rifle Association.
Formed in 1973 by conservative activists including Paul Weyrich and state legislators like then-Illinois State Rep. Henry Hyde, ALEC has earned infamy throughout the progressive movement for its ability to promote model legislation favorable to its corporate funders through statehouses across the country. ...
Florida's statute on the use of force in self-defense is virtually identical to Section 1 of ALEC's Castle Doctrine Act model legislation as posted on the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). According to CMD, the model bill was adopted by ALEC's Civil Justice Task in August 2005 -- just a few short months after it passed the Florida legislature -- and approved by its board of directors the following month.
Since the 2005 passage of Florida's law, similar statutes have been passed in 16 other states. This was no accident. In a 2008 interview with NRA News, ALEC resident fellow Michael Hough explained how his organization works with the NRA to push similar legislation through its network of conservative state legislators[.]
In this version of the story, the NRA plays the role of "billionaire funder":
According to a 2002 report [pdf] from Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRA is "a longtime funder of ALEC." The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reports that the gun lobby group was a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of ALEC's 2011 annual conference, and that an NRA operative was "the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011."
ALEC is, put simply, command-and-control for the Movement Conservative war in the states. Progressives have no ALEC. (Of course, we have no billionaires either, so maybe it's a moot point.)
Many of the laws that got Trayvon Martin killed were passed in 2006 as a result of a huge push by the NRA. The following, from a piece by Rick Perlstein in The New Republic and published at the time, details much of this effort. It's fascinating and prescient.
Note as you read the use of the phrase "Castle Doctrine" — a brilliant bit of false framing, a perversion of something in English common law that allows a person to defend himself in his home — a place from which there is no retreat. If you can't retreat, you get to stand your ground; otherwise, you must retreat if you can.
The NRA (per)version of the Castle Doctrine, as Perlstein explains, applies a "no retreat needed" rule to any place a person has a "right to be." License to kill, in other words, from wherever you happen to be standing.
Note also the indemnification of the shooter provided by these laws. The perfect one-two punch enabling the modern citizen-assassin.
Perlstein has added elsewhere that the "NRA got [these insane laws] passed around the country, with practically nobody noticing, and far too few Democrats objecting." Too right.
Here's a chunk from of his TNR piece. Classic Perlstein.
Enjoy (sorry, no online version; my emphasis and some reparagraphing):
Unnoticed by most of the national media, 2006 became the year the National Rifle Association got its way — and average citizens in almost a dozen states earned more leeway to shoot first and ask questions later than, in some circumstances, officers of the law.
The NRA calls it the "Castle Doctrine," after a mellifluous passage in Book 4 in Blackstone's Commentaries:
"And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity."
But what has been sold to state legislators as the restoration of a stolen patrimony — "the Castle Doctrine, in essence, simply places into law what is a fundamental right: self defense," as an NRA newsletter puts it — is in actuality quite radical.
Existing statutes and court precedents impose a "duty to retreat" in the face of an intruder. Genuine self-defense is legal — always has been, always will. For over 200 years, distinguishing the one from the other was for police, prosecutors, juries, and judges to decide.
The new laws remove that discretion. In Arizona's, passed in April [2006], a shooter "is presumed to be acting reasonably," their target presumed to intend bodily harm, if the target "unlawfully and forcefully enters or entered the person's dwelling, residence, or motor vehicle," or merely "is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied motor vehicle to further an unlawful activity." Notes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, "if someone breaks into your dwelling, it's reasonable to assume that person is in there to do you harm."
But in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, and Oklahoma, the same immunities apply in any place you have a legal right to be.
Florida's law also immunizes against the deaths of innocent bystanders — like the two men in a gunfight, Damon "Red Rock" Darling and Leroy "Yellowman" Larose, both of whom, according to the Miami Herald plan Castle Doctrine defenses once it is determined whose bullet it was that cut down Sherdavia Jenkins, nine, on her front porch in Liberty City. (Responds the NRAs Arulanandam: "Look, any law on the books will, you know — there are going to be people who are going to try to take advantage of the laws on the books.")
The Castle Doctrine covers shooters who simply feel at risk. In Winter Haven, Florida, Justin Boyette meant no harm when he approached Michael Brady on Brady's lawn, unarmed, possibly to shake his hand. Brady felt menaced and shot him anyway.
Brady feels deeply remorseful — but plans to attempt a Castle Doctrine defense nonetheless. But Castle Doctrine laws provide little guidance about what happens once cases reach the courts. An Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney in Kentucky, Kimberly Henderson Baird, was so baffled as to how the new law applied to the case of a drug dealer beaten to death by one of his customers that she gave up and accepted a manslaughter plea. "If we couldn't understand it ourselves, how are we going to get a jury to understand it?"
The victim's sister, when she learned her brother's killer would be eligible for parole in two months, noted Kentucky's new law "basically says if anyone comes into your home, and if you have a grudge against them or anything, you can do this and get away with it." She wonders whether the legislature "thought things through."
Good question. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as soon as the 2006 legislative sessions opened, the NRA roared into action so quickly gun control groups were blindsided. Bills were introduced in Georgia and South Carolina January 10; Arizona's was first read two days later; South Dakota's was signed by February; by summer, ten new Castle Doctrine laws were in force. Texas is scheduled to introduce theirs in January 2007.
The NRA has described it as a train "chugging through the nation, reuniting Americans with the right to protect themselves and loved ones from danger." Both Democrats and Republicans have been glad to grease the rails. Only one state legislator voted against Kentucky's law; Georgia's passed the state senate 26 to one. Democratic governors signed them in Louisiana, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Michigan.
Some of the laws specifically withhold immunity from those who shoot cops. Georgia's, however, does not....
More on the history of the Castle Doctrine from Garrett Epps at The American Prospect.
Researchers at Notre Dame and Purdue are set to release a study showing that a person holding a gun is more likely to perceive others as also holding a gun.
From Notre Dame:
In five experiments, subjects were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.
The researchers varied the situation in each experiment - such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they perceived the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation the observers found themselves in, the study showed that responding with a gun biased observers to report "gun present" more than did responding with a ball...
...The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that simply letting observers see a nearby gun did not influence their behavior; holding and using the gun was important.
In light of the recent events surrounding Trayvon Martin's shooting, this study could hold telling implications in the gun control debate. If George Zimmerman had not been in possession of a gun, not only would he have been unable to shoot Martin, he may not have felt threatened in the first place.
Read the rest of this post...
Remember, everything the Republicans propose is for some rich donor. In this case, private insurance. Nothing is every proposed by the modern GOP that is intended to actually help solve a real problem.
Read the rest of this post...
95-0 per TIME. Guess even the Republicans couldn't say no to vets before Veterans' Day.
The bill would give tax credits of up to $9,600 to companies hiring disabled vets who have been jobless at least six months, and improve job training and counseling for veterans. Obama included the tax breaks in his $447 billion jobs plan, which has otherwise gone nowhere so far in Congress.
Poppies grow wild in fields heavily fertilized with corpses. It's the reason the poppy became the symbol of the old WWI Armistice Day.
I was tempted to print just the first part, leaving off the last stanza, the call to arms. Without that part, the voice of the endless Dead is poignant, evocative. But in these times, I think we need the call to arms.
We face an emboldened implacable foe, pounding us into dust, it seems, and the fate of the new century truly hangs in the balance. What will the world be like, for example, when four giant corporations own 80% of all fresh water on the planet — free in a "privatized" world to do whatever they like — responsive only to their dreams of wealth and their ego-driven Galtian erections? What will the resistance — you know there will be resistance — look and feel like? (You know the answer; that war has already started.)
Take up our quarrel with the foe: to you from failing hands we throw the torch. Our thanks to Ian Welsh, a Canadian of course, for reminding us of this great poem on this day of remembrance.
On this Veterans Day, we learn that Soltz is going back on active duty and returning to Iraq:
One of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq is heading back there on military assignment, likely as part of the last arm of a U.S. mission he has vehemently opposed.
Jon Soltz, the chairman and co-founder of VoteVets.org, a leading critic of the Iraq war, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday that he was taking a year of absence from the group to deploy to Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn.
"This has always been a possibility," he said. "I have always been a member of the army reserves, it is just not anything I talk about for legal reasons. The bottom line is, I can't if I'm on active duty, be in charge of VoteVets anymore."
"I'm not an idiot. I've known the possibilities of this for a long time," he added. "I get the honor to be probably in the last rotation in Iraq. My order is for 12 months and if you take a look at that timetable, December 2011 will be when all U.S. troops come out anyway."
Jon Soltz is a good friend of AMERICAblog. He has been a tenacious and eloquent advocate. He's fearless. And, he's been a stalwart ally in the effort to repeal DADT.
In an email to the over 100,000 supporters of VoteVets.org, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of the group, Jon Soltz, announced he is taking a one-year leave of absence from the organization to deploy to Iraq, as part of Operation New Dawn. He will reassume his position upon his return....
The group, however, won't miss a beat - continuing its work on the same issues of importance to veterans - from veterans health care, to energy independence - with interim Chairman, and Iraq War Veteran, Ashwin Madia, who has been the group's Vice Chairman since 2009. The rest of the VoteVets.org infrastructure will remain the same.
High profile members of the Board of Advisors expressed appreciation for Soltz's service, and the strength of the organization he helped to build.
"I'm proud of Jon for going back to lead the Soldiers in his unit in Iraq, and just as proud of what he's built and will leave behind," said retired General Wesley Clark. "VoteVets.org has cemented its place in the veterans community, and the organization that Jon started from nothing now has over 100,000 members, and an infrastructure that will allow it to continue its strong work, while Jon is in Iraq. I look forward to my continued involvement with VoteVets.org in the coming year, and well into the future."
OK, I made up the rumor, but I'm still placing bets. As to the fact, here's Keith Olbermann, subbing for Lawrence O'Donnell on Countdown:
In a surprise move, Rachel Maddow piles on in the show that follows (usually she and Keith tag-team their subjects).
About 30 minutes in, she goes back to Alan Simpson, the "milking the system" remark, and the "veterans not helping" crack. Her follow-on comments about the social contract are excellent (no video, but here's a very rough transcript). At the end, she asks pointedly:
"Whose idea was it to let Alan Simpson anywhere near Social Security?"
(Rachel, pick us. We know the answer: That would be Team Like Nixon to China. Cookie, please?)
Update: Looks like VoteVets have just added their voice to the call for Simpson's resignation. This is getting interesting.
This is just wrong. It's another legacy of the Bush/Cheney era. All those politicians who claim to support the troops aren't supporting the troops if they let this happen:
At the height of the Iraq war, the Army routinely fired hundreds of soldiers for having a personality disorder when they were more likely to be suffering from the traumatic stresses of war, discharge data suggests.
Under pressure from Congress and the public, the Army later acknowledged the problem and drastically cut the number of soldiers given the designation. But advocates for veterans say an unknown number of troops still unfairly bear the stigma of a personality disorder, making them ineligible for military health care and other benefits.
"We really have an obligation to go back and make sure troops weren't misdiagnosed," said Dr. Barbara Van Dahlen, a clinical psychologist whose nonprofit "Give an Hour" connects troops with volunteer mental health professionals.
So, we sent these men and women to war, they suffered because of it. And, instead of helping them, the Army kicked them out with no benefits.
You only have to look in that box titled "AMERICAblog Reader Pets" in the upper right hand corner of this site to see how much we all love their pets. We've received hundreds and hundreds of pet photos -- and they keep coming. Last week, John -- finally -- joined the rank of pet owners. So, all the animal lovers should read this article from today's New York Times about dogs who have come to the aid of vets dealing with PTSD:
The dogs to whom they credit their improved health are not just pets. Rather, they are psychiatric service dogs specially trained to help traumatized veterans leave the battlefield behind as they reintegrate into society.
Because of stories like these, the federal government, not usually at the forefront of alternative medical treatments, is spending several million dollars to study whether scientific research supports anecdotal reports that the dogs might speed recovery from the psychological wounds of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In dozens of interviews, veterans and their therapists reported drastic reductions in P.T.S.D. symptoms and in reliance on medication after receiving a service dog.
The article is really worth a read. And, hat tip to Senator Al Franken:
Under a bill written by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, veterans with P.T.S.D. will get service dogs as part of a pilot program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Training a psychiatric service dog and pairing it with a client costs more than $20,000. The government already helps provide dogs to soldiers who lost their sight or were severely wounded in combat, but had never considered placing dogs for emotional damage.
We'll hear a lot of speeches about veterans and their service to our nation today. But, any Republican Senator who speaks today should be ashamed. Their colleague, Tom Coburn (OK) is still blocking a bill to aid vets. At the end of last week, Senator Akaka laid down the gauntlet:
Speaking Friday on the Senate floor about a procedural hold that is blocking passage of S. 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act, Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said “it would be truly disgraceful” if the bill didn’t clear the Senate by Veterans’ Day.
Akaka said the bill represents a bipartisan collection of veterans’ committee proposals packaged into one bill so it could quickly pass. Consideration of the measure is being blocked by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who doesn’t want the measure brought up unless he is given an opportunity to offer amendments.
“This single senator is denying veterans many benefits and services,” Akaka said, including a new caregiver assistant program at families of the “most seriously wounded veterans.”
Well, it's Veterans Day and Coburn is still blocking the bill. His GOP colleagues are enabling him.
On Monday, Democratic Senators held a press conference to focus attention on this issue. And, Coburn showed up for what he called the "festivities." The Democrats blasted him anyway:
Festivities? This is all fun and games for Coburn. It's reality for the vets and their families.
Isn't it time to just roll over Coburn? If the Senate can't do it for veterans, they won't do it for anyone.
Read the rest of this post...
Today marks the anniversary of the end of World War I. It was also known as "the war to end all wars," which, unfortunately, it wasn't. My grandfather, Festus Joyce, served in World War I. He emigrated to the United States from Ireland in 1910. A few years later, he shipped out to Europe to fight for his new country, which earned him U.S. citizenship. That is a very American story -- and is repeated to this day. Below is my grandfather in his uniform. He died in 1970 when I was 10: On this day when we honor them, thanks to all the vets and future vets.
We always knew "support the troops" didn't really mean anything to Republicans. It was a slogan, nothing more. And, that's being confirmed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who is using the anonymous "hold" procedure in the Senate to prevent action on a bill designed to support veterans. Usually, these "holds" are secret, but the veterans have outed Coburn:
Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.
Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill.
Maybe the Democrats should file a cloture motion on S. 1963 to force the GOP caucus to choose between Coburn and the vets.
Read the rest of this post...
During the runup to the invasion of Iraq I could never understand how people could fall for the war-mongering talk about chemical weapons. At the time I was in Vietnam, seeing first hand what American chemical weapons had done. Seeing young children of 10 or 11 suffering from dioxin and then hearing the chicken hawks scream about Iraq's chemical weapons (that the US sold to Iraq) was hard to swallow. If only those demanding war had a clue about the lasting impact of their actions.
A few months after leaving Vietnam I was taking my father to the VA in the US where I met vets who were on permanent disability due to exposure to the same chemicals. What a horrible, lasting impact those chemicals have had on the world. Decades after the US left Vietnam, it's still a problem.
New environmental tests confirm extremely high levels of dioxin, the toxic ingredient of Agent Orange, in people, fish and soil near a former U.S. air base where American troops stored the herbicide during the Vietnam War.
"Time is of the essence" to finish cleaning up the site, now home to the Danang airport, where dioxin levels in the soil, sediment and fish were 300 to 400 times higher than internationally accepted levels, the survey by the Canadian environmental firm Hatfield Consultants said.
We wrote about the FOX-led lie on the "death book" for veterans earlier today. But, it's important to see who keeps pushing this fraud. This morning, Arlen Specter appeared on FOX News to keep up the drumbeat on the FOX-led lies. It's appalling that a Democrat (even a new one like Specter) would continue spreading these falsehoods. Media Matters has the video of Specter on FOX today.
Fortunately, there is a Democrat in Pennsylvania who is obliterating the GOP/FOX lies: Joe Sestak. Not only is Sestak a decorated veteran (the highest ranking vet serving in Congress), he's challenging Specter in the Democratic primary. Sestak issued a tough statement today, which blasted the lies and Specter:
"As a Veteran, I read with deep concern an editorial entitled 'The Death Book for Veterans,' which accuses the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of deliberately sending Veterans a 'hurry-up-and-die message' with a pamphlet on living wills and end-of-life care. Anyone may criticize -- and, indeed, suggest improvements to the pamphlet -- but to seriously allege that an honest effort by the VA that sincerely helps families plan for the most difficult emotional experience of their lives is a 'death book' is counter to the public's and Veterans' interest.
"This is the same kind of sensationalized rhetoric and misleading accusations behind the misinformation on 'death panels' in the health care reform debate, and I am disappointed that Arlen Specter would lend credence to this insincere rhetoric by calling for a Senate hearing without, by his own admission, even reading the pamphlet.
That's right, Specter hadn't read the document but was on FOX pushing the lie. Old GOP habits die hard -- and Specter was a GOPer for a long, long, long time. Sestak was also on Rachel Maddow last night -- and he's outraged by those trying to scare veterans:
The actual number remains small but the rapid increase is disturbing. Boston Globe:
As more women serve in combat zones, the share of female veterans who end up homeless, while still relatively small at an estimated 6,500, has nearly doubled over the last decade, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For younger veterans, it is even more pronounced: One out of every 10 homeless vets under the age of 45 is now a woman, the statistics show.
And unlike their male counterparts, many have the added burden of being single parents.
“Some of the first homeless vets that walked into our office were single moms,’’ said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “When people think of homeless vets, they don’t think of a Hispanic mother and her kids. The new generation of veterans is made up of far more women.’’
Overall, female veterans are now between two and four times more likely to end up homeless than their civilian counterparts, according to the VA, most as a result of the same factors that contribute to homelessness among male veterans: mental trauma related to their military service and difficulty transitioning into the civilian economy.
On July 7, at a town hall meeting in Denver, a Vietnam veteran confronted John McCain about his support of veterans' issues. Advertisement
"I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations," responded McCain.
Although this sounds good, it is inaccurate and misleading. The VFW and American Legion do not compile congressional voting records, and other veterans' organizations that do compile records aren't favorable.
Disabled American Veterans is an organization that was founded following World War I, and today has 1.4 million members.
It not only tracks this legislation, but tracks how politicians vote. John McCain is documented as having voted with DAV-supported legislation 34 percent of the time. Barack Obama has voted with the DAV 89 percent of the time.
Another organization that tracks legislation important to veterans is Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the first and largest organization dedicated to those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
IAVA is only concerned with bettering the lives of returning veterans, and advocating for their rights. Its records show McCain voting with IAVA 58 percent of the time, and receiving a "D" rating. Obama voted with IAVA 89 percent of the time, receiving a "B-plus" rating.
Include your pet's photo in our rotating archive by sending it to photos@americablog.com. Make sure you put "pet" in the subject line, and tell us something about your pet (goofy, touching, whatever you like), and we just might write a post about it too!
