Drill Sergeant Michelle Manhart stripped of status after nude Playboy spread
posted at 1:24 am on February 16, 2007 by Ian
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The actions of Michelle Manhart is what really makes the troops look bad; not what they do in action, as the MSM would like you to believe:
An Air Force drill sergeant and former Iowa National Guard member who posed nude for Playboy magazine has been removed from active duty, she and the Air Force said Wednesday.
Michelle Manhart, who appeared in a six-page spread in Playboy’s February issue, said she got word Friday that she was removed from “extended active duty” and was also told that she was demoted from staff sergeant to senior airman.
Her reaction:
“I’m disappointed in our system,” Manhart told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “They went too far with it.”
Sigh.
If you want to see the photos, I will not be linking to them. You know how to find them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Zero Tolerance
Zero Common Sense
titillating, yeah baby!
Kini on February 16, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Excuse me? This military member betrayed “good order and discipline”. I’m disappointed that I will not be reading of an Other Than Honorable discharge in her case.
That America lives by its appetites is among our worst faults.
Freelancer on February 16, 2007 at 1:43 AM
What did she expect? A promotion? The only person or persons that went to far was her. It’s called “conduct unbecoming a non-commissioned officer”.
Maybe William Arkin was thinking of this as an “amenity”.
kevcad on February 16, 2007 at 1:46 AM
I support women’s rights. To be naked.
Savage on February 16, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Someone went too far alright, but it wasn’t the nefarious “they.” Good Lord, she has kids! Zero common sense pretty much says it all.
Glynn on February 16, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Tramp-stamp ‘tats, two kids, and a husband that apparently had no problem with his wife becoming a punchline for every comedian in the world.
Classy!
ScottMcC on February 16, 2007 at 2:05 AM
The system that keeps you out of a burka, toots? The one that expects a modicum of decency from it’s officers,sugar?
bbz123 on February 16, 2007 at 2:13 AM
Feminists must be dizzy. They want to defend her right to free expression and ability to undermine the evil patriarchy of the military, yet to do so they will be defending sexist men (I know, a redudancy) the ability to objectivy her lecherously.
Who has the popcorn?
hadsil on February 16, 2007 at 2:15 AM
You are excused.
Would you rather she wear a burqa, than a bear skin rug?
Big deal! When you have senators running around calling the USA a pariah(Kerry), making deals with the enemy(Kennedy), and calling our troops Nazis’(Durbin).
Posing nude is mouse nuts compaired to the crap our tax dollars are paying for.
Kini on February 16, 2007 at 2:15 AM
I wouldn’t say she looks bad. Less than dignified, perhaps, but not bad.
Mark Jaquith on February 16, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Big deal. When you have senators running around the world calling America’s troops a pariah(Kerry), nazis’(Durbin), and whatever else the enemy wants to hear.
This is mousenuts.
Kini on February 16, 2007 at 2:27 AM
You just don’t do that stuff in a professional military. Especially if you’re a noncom. How did she expect to drill when every troop has already undressed her.
Free Constitution on February 16, 2007 at 2:32 AM
She’s married with kids, and her husband has no problem with her showing the goods to the world…
As much as I’d like to….uh….jump in (she’s hot), this is not the kind of woman I’d want to be married to, and this is not the kind of woman I want representing our armed forces.
infidel4life on February 16, 2007 at 2:34 AM
Good riddance. If she was a civilian, I could care less if she posed–hell, I’d probably appreciate it. But she exploited the fact that she was in the military to get into Playboy, which disgraces anybody who wears the uniform honorably. It’s about serving your country, not personal gain, and Drill Sergeants are supposed to represent the best of the NCO corps. If she’s at all surprised by any part of the Air Force’s reaction then she’s an idiot. Sounds to me like she’s just trying to milk the publicity for all it’s worth while she still can.
ReubenJCogburn on February 16, 2007 at 2:42 AM
I need to see the
proofsI mean proof.CharlestonCritic on February 16, 2007 at 2:42 AM
It could be that she wanted out…if so, she got exactly what she wanted. Otherwise, if she truly is surprised at the official response, then her judgment is too poor to serve as a member of the armed forces. She should stay away from positions of responsibility and leadership.
JustTruth101 on February 16, 2007 at 2:48 AM
It would be awfully difficult for a drill instructor to be effective after appearing nude in Playboy. One of the requirements of the job is that your trainees RESPECT you. In fact the entire training program of each of the military services relies on respect for rank and respect for position. While I’m no prude, it seems nearly impossible for her to retain the respect of her charges (or her superior officers either).
She made her choice. She’ll have to live with the consequences.
georgej on February 16, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Look. The UCMJ, MCM, and every other instruction strictly forbids any wearing of the uniform representing anything other than the United States Military. This includes seeking approval for PR and all photo ops. You cannot wear the uniform for anything other than representing the military in a respectful manner. This is strictly outlined in our rules of ethics. She chose to be a dumb@$$ by ignoring these rules, and should thus be treated like a dumb@$$. “quote Red from That 70’s Show.
“You dumb@$$!”.
I have 2 words for the dumb@$$. “Dishonerable discharge”. Rules are rules. You signed the dotted line, you are subject to the rules. End of story. Time to start enforcine the rules. Hint Hint Congress.
El Guapo on February 16, 2007 at 3:30 AM
Time to start enforcing the rules! Hint Hint William Jefferson and Dan Sulton.
El Guapo on February 16, 2007 at 3:32 AM
I’m dissapointed too. They definately should have discharged her.
What was it that KP said a while ago about the skankification of our culture? Let’s see, a thirty year old mother of two, Air Force Drill Sergeant is posing nude for Playboy? Yeah, I think the culture’s thoroughly skankified.
Wolfman on February 16, 2007 at 4:05 AM
Disgusting…but then again, I am just a little jealous. I’m at that point in life where I wish I looked as good in clothes as I looked without clothes just a few years ago.
bopbottle on February 16, 2007 at 5:35 AM
“Dismissed!” Sure glad you didn’t say anything about standing at attention.
Sorry.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 16, 2007 at 7:06 AM
It’s not about being naked. It’s about disgracing the uniform.
El Guapo is right.
Quisp on February 16, 2007 at 7:49 AM
WHATTAPIG.
bloggless on February 16, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Too much publicity for too little.
right2bright on February 16, 2007 at 8:37 AM
A few years ago there was a news story about Army guys doing a porn movie off-duty, but wearing their uniforms (or at least wearing them for a few minutes). They were from a base in either North or South Carolina. I don’t recall whether the article specified the nature of the movie (either gay or straight porn), but I *do* remember they were all discharged for dishonoring the uniform.
I’ve become increasingly conservative over the years; but I was a frat boy before I was a conservative, so I’m really not capable of getting worked up over something as tame as Playboy. I think some of you are really being harsh in jumping to the conclusion that she is a skank. It’s a free country, etc.
However, the military has its own rules and culture, which she knowingly defied. She should have been discharged. It sounds like her commanding officers treated her with kid gloves out of fear of feminist backlash. That disturbs me much more than the idea of a grown woman doing a Playboy pictorial.
Anton on February 16, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Anton, any woman, who takes off her clothes and displays her baby feeders and genetalia for men is indeed a skank. And a pig.
bloggless on February 16, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Pose nude or happen to be gay; sorry you’re just not good enough.
But if you committed a felony or dropped out of high school and scored ridiculousy low on your ASFAB; we want you!
JaHerer22 on February 16, 2007 at 9:19 AM
What’s wrong with this picture is that she could not make it into Playboy on her own. She had to use the USAF as a hook. Now she’s moving on to an entertainment and movie career? Ha! That’s laughable! What a princess. She is not that … uhm … how should I say it … entertaining. 15 minutes of fame … right here!
bcre8v on February 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Yea, they should ship her over to Iraq… that would be a USO show I want to see…
Thank god for them…
BadBrad on February 16, 2007 at 9:44 AM
I don’t feel a bit sorry for her. If she wanted to pose nude IN UNIFORM then she deserves whatever is coming. Sadly America will reward her. She will be the next darling on the red carpet while her soon to be ex-husband will be paying child support. Sad.
Limerick on February 16, 2007 at 9:52 AM
I call dibs on and volunteer my services to comfort her in this difficult time.
Mazztek on February 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM
That’s the “little” detail that seems to get left out -the spread starts out with her in uniform. If that is true (I haven’t seen the pictures) she should be dismissed. Immediately.
As someone else mentioned, it seems like this is what she (and Playboy?) wanted. She gets out of the military and gets famous at the same time. Free publicity for her and Playboy. If true, she not only disgraced the uniform, she did it for personal gain.
taznar on February 16, 2007 at 10:11 AM
What she did was unbecoming of an NCO and especially a DI. She was supposed to lead by example. What an example! However, receiving an Article 15 without discharge may have been an appropriate choice. Removing her from her DI duties and from active duty definitely was. Article 15 is basically used on someone that her commander feels is salvageable and worth keeping in, if they can get her attention. As a former (mustang) AF Squadron Commander, I would have considered adding 6-8 weeks of correctional custody to insure we had her attention.
If I remember correctly, the soldiers were doing gay porn, which is well beyond the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. The Army had no choice but to discharge them.
Catseye on February 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM
No pic link? That’s censorship!!
Rich on February 16, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Where are you from? The dark ages? She posed nude for Playboy, she didn’t molest children or expose herself in public.
This is 2007, there’s nothing wrong with a grown woman choosing to take her clothes off for a very popular, widely-read adult magazine. For the Air Force to demote her for this really smacks of chauvinism, and I’m not one to play the Victim Card very often.
But really - a skank and a pig? For posing nude? FOR PLAYBOY??? PB is the Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood of adult entertainment.
Honestly, people, this prudishness does nothing for conservatism except reinforce the stereotype that rightwingers are overly religious, sexually repressed, and ashamed of female sexuality.
She posed for Playboy. It’s none of your business. Grow up.
Enrique on February 16, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I agree with everything the Air Force did here, but I don’t find what she did very shocking.
I find it far more obscene that numbers of high level federal appointees including former CIA and FBI hot shots have seen fit to print kiss and tell books, or provide info for news reports to feed their HUGE egos and their wallets.
Manhart sold her “uniform” for a few dollars. Big deal. These others sold their souls for more, and nothing is done to them.
Some states have laws that prevent fellons from profiting from their crimes, by taking income generated from books or paid interviews. Unfortunately, I think this type of law is needed for high-level government appointees.
Take the job because you believe in government service, not the option to sell a tell-all book (that no doubt makes the author out to be a hero) later.
doufree on February 16, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Enrique:
You ever visited MySpace? YouTube? You know what kinda crap people put out there. If the military allowed ANYONE in UNIFORM to perform whatever they wanted you would have a real zoo going on.
I personally don’t and won’t look at ‘girly’ mags. Seen one, seen them all. Repressed? I dunno. My wife still likes me.
Limerick on February 16, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Must not make discharge jokes. Must not make discharge jokes.
lorien1973 on February 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I don’t know if you read the other comments before posting, but the issue isn’t so much that she posed, it’s that she posed as an Air Force NCO. As bcre8v,9:41 AM, stated, she could not have made into PB on her own “assests.” it was that she was active military that got her the gig. She had a choice: follow Air Force regs or cash in on PB. She made her choice, and now she is living with the consequences. There are no victims here.
Mallard T. Drake on February 16, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Now that’s funny.
Slublog on February 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM
?
RMSpuhler on February 16, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I have conducted my own investigation, and have concluded the Air Force did the right thing. As an instructor, she has a responsibility to ensure that when she calls the men to attention, she gets the right response. And more importantly, when she orders them “at ease” they are able to get “at ease”.
csdeven on February 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM
At the risk of dating myself this is not the first time this has happened. Back in the 80’s Playboy did a special issue entitled “Women of the Armed Services” and they had women from all 5 branches grace their pages and all of them suffered some sort of displinary action from discharge to reduction in rank. The rules haven’t changed.
LakeRuins on February 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM
UCMJ Article 134.
This happened in the 80s also with a female that was in the Navy, and I think another one that was in the Army. I don’t know why she thought the result would be different.
As to JaHerer22’s assertion that this is a better thing than the military dropping standards for enlistment, apples and oranges. Whatever the criteria for enlistment, she was already on active duty. In the big picture, she is not much different from the Lt in Washington state that refused to deploy to Iraq. They knew what was expected of them and chose to disobey. That may be fine for working in an office, but in the military, a breakdown of discipline can not be tolerated. In it’s extreme, it can get people killed.
As to lowering the standards for new recruits, it wasn’t so long ago that they were raised. I joined the Army in 1975, almost 2 months after the embassy fell in Saigon. Before taking the ASVAB test, I was asked if I needed someone to read the test to me. The signature line on my enlistment contract had a provision to make a “mark” instead of a signature. This would be an “X” witnessed by two others.
As proud as I am to have served for 22 years, 19 of them in the Navy, and as proud as I am of the caliber of personnel currently on active duty, changing the standards for enlistment do not bother me. Throughout our history we have had warriors that probably couldn’t pass a college entrance exam. I know for a fact that we’ve had convicted criminals serve too.
What I am concerned about is that the training to turn civilians into soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines be tough enough to weed out those that can’t abide by a code of honor once they are in. Not everyone with a high IQ is capable of living a military life. Many degrees don’t make a good leader. And bringing back a draft will NOT make for a better fighting force. Draftees have served very honorably. But the one thing that they have in common at the beginning is that they DO NOT want to serve. Boot camp can change that, but it doesn’t always.
TugboatPhil on February 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM
I don’t think we should consider this topic closed until frankj (of IMAO) has commented. Where are you, frankj?
Anton on February 16, 2007 at 11:47 AM
People do foolish things sometimes, as Manhart clearly did in this instance. I mean, forget about citing a particular article of the UCMJ, when she was thinking about posing for Playboy at some point in her considerations a sense of professionalism should’ve kicked in:
- Making risque poses in your employer’s uniform is a bad idea: expect to be fired. Doing so in military uniform is an especially bad idea: expect to be harshly disciplined. Feigning surprise when the ax comes down simply makes her look like an idiot.
- She’s an NCO in general, and a drill instructor in particular. She’s supposed to set a positive example, not a bad one.
- She’s a representative of all women in the military, and her actions will reflect credit or discredit on more than herself; she’s just reinforced every negative stereotype that men have about female servicemembers.
A trifecta! Ordinarily I’d say that’s an accomplishment and that congratulations are in order, but I’ll refrain in this instance.
Spurius Ligustinus on February 16, 2007 at 12:12 PM
That there I think is the biggest issue. The vast majority of troops (male troops at any rate… and probably a few of the ladies even) probably enjoyed her photos (call it a morale boost :D ) but that point you made at the end is a major concern.
Yakko77 on February 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM
When I was in the Service it was a punishable offense to demean and degrade women, and not just the one’s in uniform. We could face punishment just for a wolf-whistle. or an comment that could be considered demeaning to, or disparaging of, others.
Here we have a woman that degrades and demeans other women by posing nude in a major publication and yet feels that “They went too far with it.”? BS. She acted in a manner that is unbecoming of a member of the military and that is a punishable offense.
As I was reminding continually while in service, we represent America as long as we serve and any action we take, whether on duty or off, reflects upon the military and upon the USA as a whole. This woman deserves the punishment she receives.
RedinBlueCounty on February 16, 2007 at 2:22 PM
This woman’s not fit to be a mom. Pathetic.
Rose on February 16, 2007 at 2:42 PM
The UCMJ says “don’t do it.” What part of “don’t do it” did she not understand, especially as a TI?
Actually,it’s a good thing that such a raging narcissist did something like this. By these actions, such a person has demonstrated that she is not fit to be instilling things like “duty, honor, and country” into young men and women. She did the USAF a favor.
For the Air Force to demote her for this really smacks of chauvinism, and I’m not one to play the Victim Card very often.
Enrique on February 16, 2007 at 10:29 AM
And for you to be playing it now shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The UCMJ applies to both men and women. Let some big Marine pose for Playgirl using parts of his uniform and he’ll get the ax too. As other posters have mentioned, such things have happened before with both men and women, to a consistent outcome: immediate discharge.
Playing the feminist card for this waste of USAF training funds is ridiculous. Showing your genitals to the world isn’t new or liberating; it’s tired–and it’s straight-up illegal in the military.
baldilocks on February 16, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Well lets see Jaherer22, first article, non-voilent drug felony doesn’t bar you from service? Good. Some people experiment in College, I’m glad to see the Armed Forces is willing to at least consider that rather than have a rigid unthinking rule.
Second article, oh no. The Army no longer has higher ASVAB standards than the other three brances of the Armed Services?
They’re all the same now? Well heck, lets call that scoring “ridiculously low”. You know, it would have gotten you into the Marines, Air Force, or Navy 5 years ago, but not the Army until this year; so it must be a dumbing down of the military.
Jaherer, did you even read those articles? They don’t seem to really defend your arguments that well. I guess you were hoping nobody else would read them either.
Now I think I understand why nobody usually responds to you. It’s not enough of challenge to be fun. And your “points” are irrelevant to the topic at hand most of the time…
Sorry guys, I’ll quit feeding the troll.
gekkobear on February 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM
ah the moral equivelance troop have filed in excusing one bad behavior by pointing to another.
If you really follow that line of thought you may as well excuse bundy because of Manson. Just kinda shows you how morally bankrupt people have become.
One Angry Christian on February 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM
She was not demoted at all. There was no mention of an Article 15 or Court Martial and the Air Force doesn’t just grab rank without some matter of legal process.
She was a Guardsman on extended active duty working in an E5 slot, so she wore E5 stripes and got E5 pay.
When they decided to end her extended active duty status she reverted to her actual rank of E4. This is common in the reserves and guard.
In reality this is not even punishment, it is just a slap in the face by ending her tour early. They took no actual legal action.
Maybe her Guard unit will, but that’s another story.
As for the pictures, the point ignored by the media is that as a Training Instructor they became a liability to maintaining her professional respect with her trainees.
What irks me is her acting like it was no big deal and her feigned shock at the actions. She appeared in the spread in full uniform with pictures of recruits in the pictures as well, which has to violate all manner of privacy regulations and I doubt the recruits signed waivers, or USAF Public Affairs approved it.
Another odd aspect is that she is married but the latest round of stories just calls her a Mother of 2. It is a clear attempt to get sympathy.
Karl on February 16, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Enrique, let me help you out of some of your ignorance.
To become a drill instructor, company commander, or equivalent in ANY service requires the following:
- You must be at minimum rank of E-5. (Sergeant in the Army or Marine Corps, 2nd Class Petty Officer in the Navy, Staff Sergeant in the Air Force)
- You must be considered career designated, in at least your second enlistment.
- You must volunteer for the position (at least in the USN or USMC, you cannot be ordered to push Boots involuntarily)
- You must pass a special screening for suitability to train incoming recruits
- You must complete a detailed training regimen specifically aimed at an understanding of military rules, regulations, standards of behavior and obedience
There can be no question that the Staff Sergeant knew exactly what rules and regulations she was violating. She was wrong, and deserved more punishment than she is receiving. Oh, she was immoral as well, but that doesn’t matter at all these days, does it?
Outside of the hard violations involved, she became a training liability the moment she took her clothes off; anyone in an instructional position relies on their credibility and ability to gain and hold respect in order to do their job. She destroyed all of that, and instantly became unfit to continue as a DI. Or as a servicemember for that matter.
Freelancer on February 16, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Freelancer.
Thank you for demonstrating the magnitude of that woman’s actions so thoroughly.
baldilocks on February 17, 2007 at 5:32 AM