Filmmaker Michael Tucker has written a response to a Buffalo News Aug. 5th editorial and a defense of Jon Powers charity work. The original editorial painted Powers’ War Kids Relief charity as a failure, suggesting Powers himself was the major benefitiary of donated money.
While the candidate has admitted the charity accomplished little, not much has been said as to why or what was actually tried. Tucker’s editorial offers the latest spin on the story saying, “When Jon went to Baghdad in 2005, getting around as a civilian wasn’t easy and the city was tense. It was impossible to move without your own security detail or a military escort, but Jon managed to secure meetings with key officials and commanders who were keen to see his program succeed.”
Unfortunetly for Powers the editorial serves as only more evidence that the charity was unable to accomplish anything beyond talk and fundraising, leaving open questions of where that money actually went and why a veteran of the War who had fundraising help from powerful officials like Senator John Kerry could not account for the security difficulties. Tucker says in the editorial, “In my estimation, the major reason federal funds were not secured was because it was impossible for the military to provide security in Iraq for humanitarian efforts after 2006.”
While this may be true, in the last year of campaigning the issue has not, to my knowledge, been suggested as a reason for the charities shortcomings. Instead there was no suggested in the beginning of the campaign that the charity had major shortcomings at all. War Kids Relief was touted as a central componenet of the candidate’s experience. While Tucker describes the current debate over this organization as an attempt to “Swift Boat” the candidate, his editorial is a recognition that those questioning just what was accomplished by War Kids have valid concerns.
In 2005-2006 it was easy to discern the situation in Iraq was not stable, hence the need to provide for children through charitable means. It was not so easy to discern from the campaign or Powers’ continued defense throughout the campaign that War Kids was unable to accomplished its goals. There is no question pursuing humanitarian work in a War Zone is difficult or that Powers was noble for attempting to make a difference, there is a question over the reality of what was accomplished over the campaigns representation.
The seeming admission by Tucker that the charity was unable to launch major efforts, regardless of why, is further evidence that the representation was different from the reality. It also runs counter to the statement by Tucker that:
The Jon Powers I know today is the same guy I met in Baghdad, who, like thousands of other service members, saw people in need and figured out ways to help them, often in the face of bureaucratic indifference.
If Powers had found a way to use War Kids to solve problems on the ground, despite “bureaucratic indifference” there has been no evidence given. Tucker only provides that Powers was able to have meetings with politicians, community leaders and beurocrats but in his defense provides no evidence of actions that were taken. The campaign itself has provided no evidence to the contrary nor has Powers himself, leaving us with no other conclusion to reach than the charity was unable to accomplish its goals.
This is not a matter of Swift Boating, but instead an attempt to reach the truth about a part of the candidates life that still remains very much open to interpretation.