Special Forces Soldier Seeks Seat in the US Congress

[ODB]

I hope this is the right place to put this.

The Special Forces Ass'n (SFA) confirmed in response to an inquiry from the Congressional Quarterly that once elected I will indeed be the first Green Beret to serve in Congress.

I can use all the financial support possible. My pledge to SF personnel and vets in general in return - I've got your back 24/7 down in the snakepit of D.C., and the coffee will always be available for any vet stopping by my office.

The running password will be "TROJAN HORSE."

Jim Steiner

http://www.joinjim2008.com/

From another posting:

Yes, I am fully SF tab qualified. In 1982, since I am now an old guy, when I completed the Q course the tab was not yet out (someone posted the effective date, which is 1983).

Someone else correctly notes you had a choice of the SF tab or the Ranger tab at that time, not both. Like most SF personnel, I probably wore my greens 1-2 times a year, tops. This is the only picture in my greens. I do not have a photo once both tabs were authorized for wear (hell I don't even remember when that occurred, after 1987 or so?).

I branch transferred from Infantry (hence, EIB award) into MI at the time I volunteered for SF - courtesy of the guidance of one of my First Sergeants, then SFC Johnny Holman (5th SFGA - VN) in C Co, 2/1 Inf. at Lewis where I had both a rifle platoon and then a weapons platoon, and SFC Serafin Meno (also 5th SFG-VN), the First Sergeant for B Co, 2/1, next door to me.

As a side note, COL Pete Dillon, recent Cdr, 7th SFGA, had one of the other rifle platoons in the same C Co, 2/1 Inf with me. We were together as 2LTs-1LT. Long time ago.

My first platoon sergeant at Ft. Lewis, and who later served with me at 2/10th as well, was then SSG, and later CSM (ret.) Mike McIntyre, CSM of 5th SFGA during 2001, and through 9/11.

A current reference is BG Al Aycock, now in Korea. Al and I were roommates at West Point. My claim to fame is that I beat him into SF by a year. He stayed longer.

The two first sergeants cornered me and recommended from their observations I volunteer for SF. I respected them, and I volunteered. The rest is history. As soon as SF became its own branch, I joined all the Infantry guys, signed a DF and put crossed arrows on my uniform...again, no photos except the ugly official photo.

Also, in the early 80s, when this photo was taken, the candy stripe still existed for "assigned but non-qualified" personnel. Wearing the full flash, at that time, meant you were fully qualified, so that was another reason not to tear off the Ranger tab...the flash said it.

And yes, as someone else noted, that is not a 7th SFGA oval for the wings, but the official 10th SFGA oval, red border with green center (which I understand now has changed to all green).

Jim Steiner

I think it's about time one of these former warriors made a splash in DC, if that's even possible anymore.

[Jedburgh]

......I think it's about time one of these former warriors made a splash in DC, if that's even possible anymore.

Well, there was Bob Kerrey, who was a Navy SEAL, VN vet and MoH recipient, who served in the Senate for 12 years.

Although vets tend to be in the minority amongst our reps, there have still been quite a few over the years, both combat vets and those with peacetime service, but they don't always vote along the lines that most may assume from their military backgrounds.

Ultimately, Steiner is a lawyer - which caste already makes up the vast majority of our representation in Congress.

[Stan]

to see how well our vets take care of each other once they are Senators, Congressmen, or POTUS candidates.

POLITICS-US: Vets Press McCain to Back Greater Benefits

"It's time for Senator McCain to stand up for veterans, and be a leader," the chairman of VoteVets, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, said in a statement. "The success or failure of this bill largely rests on his shoulders. He is the de facto leader of the Republican party. If he signs onto the bill, it will pass and become law. If he doesn't support it, he needs to explain why he doesn't."

McCain's silence on the G.I. Bill may surprise some observers, given the senator's six years behind bars as a former prisoner of war in North Vietnam. On the campaign trail, McCain speaks almost daily about "supporting the troops".

But organisations that have followed the senator's voting record note McCain's actions are rarely in line with the interests of veterans' organisations. In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a failing grade of "D" based on his voting record.

The same year, McCain supported the interests of the group Disabled American Veterans just 20 percent of the time. The main reason for the low scores is a consistent pattern by Senator McCain of voting against appropriating money for veterans' health care and disability payments.

According to Disabled American Veterans (DAV), McCain voted almost a dozen separate times against spending additional money on veterans' health care in 2005 and 2006 -- even as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

During that time, McCain voted against expanding mental health care and readjustment counseling for returning service members, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

[ODB]

I agree that most seem "to forget where they came from". As far as McCain goes thought this Newsweek article was interesting but looking to multi source this:

The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.

Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

Full article http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

Anyone know more on this?

[J Wolfsberger]

to see how well our vets take care of each other once they are Senators, Congressmen, or POTUS candidates.

POLITICS-US: Vets Press McCain to Back Greater Benefits

A note of caution on these things: Senators frequently vote against bills they would otherwise support beccause of "poison pill" attachments and riders. I won't condemn McCain for voting against these until I have more detail on why he voted against them.

[Steve Blair]

A note of caution on these things: Senators frequently vote against bills they would otherwise support beccause of "poison pill" attachments and riders. I won't condemn McCain for voting against these until I have more detail on why he voted against them.

That was my thought as well. It's often hard to say from the outside just what has been hidden in a particular bill.

[selil]

If military combat is war with bullets, then legislative representation is a war with words. In either case it is better to seek more understanding rather than jump to conclusions that are based on limited information or a biased message.

[Tom Odom]

True enough that caution is correct but the good Senator does have a track record in thiis arena and it is not one the DAV considers favorable toward veterans issues. That is not to condemn McCain. He may have had reasons as Steve, Sam, and John say. But a dozen or so negative votes on veterans issues needs some 'splaining, Lucy.

Tom

[Stan]

True enough that caution is correct but the good Senator does have a track record in thiis arena and it is not one the DAV considers favorable toward veterans issues. That is not to condemn McCain. He may have had reasons as Steve, Sam, and John say. But a dozen or so negative votes on veterans issues needs some 'splaining, Lucy.

Tom

I won't come straight out and say that McCain isn't up to something (good). But, but, he indeed has a freaky track record and folks before him did just the very same. I don't outright condemn him, but find similar Vets in office have had very little effect on my military afterlife (in spite of political promises previously made).

John, I'm smokin' in the hot seat wait for those 'reasons'.

BTW, I have never in my life voted for a Democrat and I doubt this year will be any different.

... Lucy, you have sum 'splainin' to du

[Tom Odom]

Here is a link to key votes in Senate and House. Provides a start point for individual research


Lucy

[J Wolfsberger]

Also along these lines, and courtesy of Defense Industry Daily:

The Impact of Recent Political Changes on the Defense Sector

The Role Of Party Politics In Shaping Defense Priorities

Thoughts on the likely impact of the current election cycle.

[Cavguy]

Brings up the interesting contradictions of the military population. I'm not even always for everything the vet groups want.

Always fascinating to me that most military (esp officers) ID as Republicans, and many are rabid conservatives, but have no opposition to the very socialistic system of military support, and loudly oppose any attempt to change it. A few examples:

1) Oppose national health care as anthema but complain loudly about not having TRICARE for life, and never pay a medical bill for their family. (TRICARE's not great, but see how many people go and buy their own)

2) Vehemently oppose gun control, yet you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base, let alone concealed carry or brandish it.

3) Oppose welfare, but are very happy with the discounted childcare, commissary benefit, (sometimes) discounted shopping, free housing (or a subsidy), free or subsidized education and college tuition (GI Bill or TA), etc.

Of course, we're different, since we get shot at. We are "entitled" to the benefits. But I'm fascinated at the sense of entitlement some who "served their country selflessly at great risk" (as volunteers) develop to more and more "free" benefits, and anyone who opposes must be anti-vet.

Note: this is not in opposition to such things as VA care for those with service related injuries and such. I'm talking benefits and entitlements.

Don't get me wrong, I think most all of the above are appropriate compensation, and valuable at keeping an AVF manned. But I don't understand the political opposition to those who wish similar benefits for the population, and the ideological contempt that seems to follow. Especially the large support for the NRA and the military's regs on firearms posession and registration on bases, which are commander's policies.

[Ken White]

...

1) Oppose national health care as anthema but complain loudly about not having TRICARE for life, and never pay a medical bill for their family. (TRICARE's not great, but see how many people go and buy their own)

2) Vehemently oppose gun control, yet you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base.

3) Oppose welfare, but are very happy with the discounted childcare, comissary benefit, (sometimes) discounted shopping, free housing (or a subsidy), free education and college tuition (GI Bill or TA), etc.

Don't and won't use Tri Care, commissary or exchange -- far as I'm concerned they're for the guys and gals currently serving. Think the retirement scheme should be contributory and portable.

I'd also note that no one ever promised me life time health care.

Note: this is not in opposition to such things as VA care for those with service related injuries and such. I'm talking benefits and entitlements.

Agreed.

... Especially the large support for the NRA and the military's regs on firearms posession and registration on bases, which are commander's policies.

We probably differ a bit on that one, though I'd note that back in my youth the prevalence of privately owned weapons, Army and Marines, was humungous. I carried various pistols in Korea (peace and war), the Dominican Republic, Viet Nam and elsewhere. I was far from alone. That didn't start changing until the 70s. I've also met a surprising number of officers and NCOs who do NOT support the NRA and individual ownership of weapons for some odd reason. I know Norm put out the word during DS/DS that privately owned weapons were not to be allowed in theater. I suspect it's gotten worse since then...

[Steve Blair]

Brings up the interesting contradictions of the military population. I'm not even always for everything the vet groups want.

Always fascinating to me that most military (esp officers) ID as Republicans, and many are rabid conservatives, but have no opposition to the very socialistic system of military support, and loudly oppose any attempt to change it. A few examples:

1) Oppose national health care as anthema but complain loudly about not having TRICARE for life, and never pay a medical bill for their family. (TRICARE's not great, but see how many people go and buy their own)

2) Vehemently oppose gun control, yet you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base, let alone concealed carry or brandish it.

3) Oppose welfare, but are very happy with the discounted childcare, comissary benefit, (sometimes) discounted shopping, free housing (or a subsidy), free education and college tuition (GI Bill or TA), etc.

Of course, we're different, since we get shot at. We are "entitled" to the benefits. But I'm fascinated at the sense of entitlement some who "served their country selflessly at great risk" (as volunteers) develop to more and more "free" benefits, and anyone who opposes must be anti-vet.

Note: this is not in opposition to such things as VA care for those with service related injuries and such. I'm talking benefits and entitlements.

Don't get me wrong, I think most all of the above are appropriate compensation, and valuable at keeping an AVF manned. But I don't understand the political opposition to those who wish similar benefits for the population, and the ideological contempt that seems to follow. Especially the large support for the NRA and the military's regs on firearms posession and registration on bases, which are commander's policies.

Always found this rather interesting myself. Good points, and possibly an interesting starting point for discussion.

Being a civilian state employee working with the military, I always find it interesting to see what they complain about and don't understand about the outside world. We have NCOs here complaining about their pay, but they don't understand that their housing allowances are more (in one case...and damned close in the other) than my take home pay. They almost keel over when they find out that we don't GET housing allowances or COLA, and that we have to pick our own insurance. They can't even comprehend working somewhere where the only way to get a promotion is to change jobs. Period.

The above is my pet rant, and comes with the mod hat firmly off. I've met plenty of military folks who do understand what they have, and often wonder how us on the outside make it without that safety net.

[tequila]

It's no accident that Lenin organized the Bolshevik Party on an explicitly military pattern.

[Ron Humphrey]

It's no accident that Lenin organized the Bolshevik Party on an explicitly military pattern.

I just figured it was cause he thought me might actually need the military in order to get anywhere with it.

[Stan]

Frankly, when I joined in the 70s I recall these benefits to be contractual aspects; just as I was bound by this contract so was/is the USG. I've yet to have a need for TRICARE, but I certainly won't dismiss any medical or financial assistance should the need arise. Whether I use my retired benefits or not, is irrelevant; they are mine and I have no intentions of reducing them one iota.

Times have certainly changed regarding off-base quarters allowances. I barely got by with mine and shared a 2 bedroom apartment with another NCO in order to make ends meet. Glad to see the Army figured out we were starving paying for gas and electricity off base.

Been an NRA life member for nearly 2 decades now. That however does not translate into me advocating all their niches and constant requests for donations for firepower on the Hill. Having spent most of my childhood hunting, some of my childhood in NE D.C. and years abroad, only the crazies and criminals are not subject to/abide by morals and laws. Punishing me will not change that scenario. I carry to this day for that very reason

I was quite pleased with being able to securely store my firearms with the provost marshal. After a great day of trap or skeet we'd hang out in the arms room cleaning and chattin' ! Great company those non-law abidin', gun-carryin' fanatics in fatiques

[Norfolk]

I can remember a time when the personnel possession of firearms was actually still encouraged in the Canadian Army. Pistols, shotguns, and of course rifles (the AR-15 Delta H-Bar and similar models were fairly popular in my old Regiment), as well as the use thereof in the off-hours was a practice that was smiled upon. Indeed, the old Infantry Patrolling PAM (the 1976 edition of B-GL-309-004/FT-001) explicitly stated that soldiers were to be encouraged to carry their own personal weapons of choice in addition to issue-weapons, admittedly as much for the pyschological/morale effect as any other.

But a shotgun could sure be handy on a patrol in da woods or in dee swomp.

I'm not sure that the US military, certainly at the lower ranks, is quite as well off as it could be. Certainly in Canada, anyone below the rank of Corporal could find themselves struggling if they had a family, and even some folks with rank might find themselves moonlighting delivering pizzas or working security. That's been the case since the late '60s, and despite some recent pay increases, I'm not aware that the problem has been eliminated; in the 90's, it was a problem that had gotten so bad that even the national media picked up on it, which is extraordinary considering the stolid indifference, even hostility, of the media here to the military until just the past few years. SISIP, the catastrophic health/disability insurance program that Canadian troops pay into, has also had a bit of a checkered record over the last decade and a half.

I wish Steiner well; Maj-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie ran as a Conservative a few years ago here in Ontario, but sadly lost, although the past MND, Brig-Gen. O'Connor is still in Parliament, and did some good work.

[120mm]

I would rather have a competent politician who promotes other, non-veterans interests than one who kowtows to supposed "Veteran's" groups.

In fact, I have a strenuous opposition to US government employees forming groups and/or unions to "lobby their own paycheck" from the public largesse and will not join them while still serving.

I "might" join the American Legion when I retire, but not before.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

We have NCOs here complaining about their pay, but they don't understand that their housing allowances are more (in one case...and damned close in the other) than my take home pay.

is due to the various service’s "Times" magazines having periodic "how your pay stacks up" issues that attempt to show that service members are not equitably compensated when compared to equivalent occupations in the civilian world. I find those articles generally to be a crock of feces.

Steve, you might point out to them also that their BAH and BAS are tax free as well. Military members do not pay for health insurance nor have “co-pays” when they go to sick-call. They do not have to participate in a retirement fund yet are guaranteed 50% of their base pay at 20.

I have yet to hear of a company that pays 100% of your medical costs, provides you a tax free housing and meals stipend, and has a pretty generous retirement package that requires zero contribution from you.