There was a Veterans Affairs Committee meeting recently to discuss the VA’s problems and how to fix them. Senator Richard Burr, the ranking Republican on the committee apparently wasn’t really interested in fixing anything, so he wrote an “open” letter saying the Veterans Organizations leaders who testified were beltway insiders who didn’t represent real veterans interests.
The Paralyzed Veterans of America took exception to this “open” letter and had this response.
I don’t think either party regards prior service as a necessity to serve on the committee. Of fourteen members, there are only two with prior military service time: a former USMC reservist E-5 and a former Air National Guardsman E-6.
The Chairman is Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He never served in the military.
From the Democrats, the majority party:
Rockefeller IV, John D. (WV) - No military service
Murray, Patty (WA) - No military service
Brown, Sherrod (OH) - No military service
Tester, Jon (MT) - No military service
Begich, Mark (AK) - No military service (and the only sitting U.S. Senator without a college degree, for trivia fans!)
Blumenthal, Richard (CT) - Sgt, USMC Reserve
Hirono, Mazie (HI) - No military service
From the Republicans, the minority party:
the aforementioned Burr, Richard (NC) - no military service
Isakson, Johnny (GA) - SSgt, GA ANG
Johanns, Mike (NE) - No military service
Moran, Jerry (KS) - no military service
Boozman, John (AR) - no military service
Heller, Dean (NV) - no military service
I agree w/Bricker’s implied point, that armed forces experience or lack thereof is irrelevant (and in fact is an inappropriate criticism of any person or politician who has an opinion about the armed forces/veterans).
When a jury hears testimony in a criminal case, they are expected to observe the witness’ demeanor and weigh their credibility. Obviously, they must be there.
When a congressional committee hears testimony, they are presumably gathering information to assist them in reaching legislative decisions. Physical presence is not as important – the testimony that’s given is available in written form. Assuming the senator reviewed the testimony later, I don’t think it’s per se unreasonable that he reaches conclusions even though he wasn’t present – he’s gotten the gist of the testimony.
Now, the Paralyzed Veterans do have a cognizable complaint, I think: Burr complains they failed to join the American Legion in calling for leadership change at the VA. But because he didn’t ask any questions, his complaint rings hollow. At the core, he should have asked, “Why aren’t you calling for leadership change at the VA?” They should be allowed to answer that before he inveighs against them for failing to support it.
That link details several statement from members of the House Science Committee.
Most of them are spot-on criticisms. But I don’t agree that all of them reveal an ill-suited member of the committee. To be clear: I am saying that based on those comments alone, I don’t agree that in each case it’s a reasonable conclusion to say that the speaker should not be a member of that committee. Obviously there may be other evidence that shows insuitability.
From the linked article:
In this case, Akin is clearly, factually wrong.
But Bartlett is not, because he’s saying something very different: that of all abortions performed, only a tiny percentage are the result of rape or incest. He’s not saying that rape or incest cannot conceive children, or that they have less chance of conceiving children, as Akin said. Bartlett is saying that abortions performed as a result of rape or incest pregnancies are a small percentage of all abortions. This is factually correct, and bears no particular evidence to his lack of scientific understanding.
There’s nothing wrong, or disqualifying, in seeking prayer for fair weather after a bout of foul weather. The “baby killer” comment I take for hyperbolic reference to abortion or contraception funding, which again is not objectively disqualifying. What a “baby” is cannot be defined by science, and any claim that science disproves that a fertilized ova is a baby is simply misplaced.
Yup. This is a good example of a disqualifying statement.
So is this. The evidence in favor of evolution is unassailable.
Really? Burr only needed to be present to ask “Why aren’t you calling for leadership change at the VA?” IOW, the “hearing” was a sham because its purpose wasn’t to gather information, but rather just a formality prior to putting forth Burr’s foregone conclusions? IIRC, a Grand jury (to continue your legal analogy) is supposed to ask questions and gather facts prior to reaching their conclusion. The end-point of a hearing may be different than for a Grand jury, but I thought gathering information was still part of the purpose.
And just because we’re all thinking it: The tactical thought that went into a GOP politician snubbing a group of Disabled Fallen True American Heroes is somewhere between Daffy Duck running headlong off a cliff and Wile E. Coyote standing under a boulder while using a stick to prod it into falling.
Topping it off by insulting the rest of the [del]GAR[/del] leadership among the veterans’ voting block is worse than running through a hole painted on a cliff: While neither of them make good sense, the insult doesn’t even make good nonsense.
And I’m sure there’s a way to construe what Burr said about the VFW as being something other than an insult. I’m sure there’s a way for Burr to spin his actions as being motivated by nothing but the kindest of intentions for all veterans, the plight of whom moves him to cry himself to sleep at night every evening. At this point, however, I’d not lay good odds on anyone believing those fairy tales.
"He ain’t got no friends on the right… " - Burr’s Primary Concern