9 more veterans to serve in Congress
WASHINGTON — Tammy Duckworth awoke in the fall of 2004 in Walter Reed Army Medical Center with both of her legs missing. As the highest-ranking double amputee in the ward, Maj. Duckworth became the go-to person for soldiers complaining of substandard care.
Now she is one of nine veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who will serve in next year's freshman class in the House.
Veterans groups said the influx of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is welcome because it occurs as the overall number of vets in Congress is on a steep decline. In the mid-1970s, the majority of lawmakers were vets.
Duckworth is one of two freshman Democrats who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The other is Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who served near Baghdad for a year.
Seven Republicans also served:
• Ron DeSantis of Florida was a judge advocate officer in the Navy who deployed to Iraq as a legal adviser during the 2007 troop surge.
• Brad Wenstrup of Ohio was a combat surgeon in Iraq.
• Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan served in an administrative capacity with an artillery unit in Iraq and retired after suffering a neck injury. He also served as an infantry rifleman in Vietnam.
• Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma was a combat pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Scott Perry of Pennsylvania commanded an aviation battalion in Iraq in 2009 and 2010.
• Doug Collins of Georgia was a chaplain in Iraq.
• Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a Harvard Law School graduate, was an infantry platoon leader in Iraq, then was on a reconstruction team in Afghanistan. In between, he was a platoon leader at Arlington National Cemetery.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.