Pro-war soldier’s question cut off at Yearly Kos? Update: DoD violation? Update: Video added

posted at 2:01 pm on August 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via Barnett, this comes from one of the left’s own, Ezra Klein:

AN ODD CLOSE. As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they “stand down.” He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage,

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you’re not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn’t, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can’t speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice.

The yKos program lists the panelists but doesn’t say who the moderator was. I’m going to see if I can find the rules about political speech for soldiers while in uniform; Paul Hackett, of all people, criticized Ehren Watada last year for calling Bush a liar while wearing military dress but that had more to do with insubordination towards a superior officer in violation of the UCMJ than simple political speech.

Needless to say, though, that the left in general and Wes Clark in particular would balk at someone using their Absolute Moral Authority to advance a political agenda is an irony too enormous to be absorbed in one take.

Update: Ironically, Kos himself wrote a post just last month arguing that vets should be allowed to wear their cammies to political events and naturally concluded by pronouncing anyone who disagreed “legitimately and objectively un-American.” Jeff Emanuel quoted him chapter and verse at Red State by way of an answer. The relevant DoD reg appears to be 1334.01, which provides in pertinent part:

3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces (including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:…

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

Even though it’s almost certainly not true, an inference of military sponsorship can be pretty clearly drawn from the fact that he’s asking a question that’s in line with current military policy. JD Johannes seems to think so too, as he e-mails to say that taking part in an inherently political event is a violation of the UCMJ. The counterargument, I guess, is that he wasn’t really engaging in “political” activity, just debating the facts about current military strategy, but I don’t know if that flies.

Update: Cribbing from Jeff Emanuel again, here’s Army Regulation 670-1 section 1-10(j). Klein doesn’t say which branch the guy belonged to but for the sake of argument:

j. Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:

(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.

(2) When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.

Update: CJ asks a good question: “I wonder how they would have treated Scott Beauchamp if he had shown up in uniform?”

Update: John Noonan from Op-For agrees the guy shouldn’t have been there in uniform but adds, “Love the Left’s logic though. You can speak out in uniform FROM theater if it fits their narrative (Beauchamp), but if a soldier challenges their assertions on Iraq, they turn into the freakin’ JAG corps.”

Update: LGF has the video. I can’t be sure but I think the moderator is Jon Soltz of VoteVets.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

186k,
Why was the question edited out?

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Catie96706 on August 3, 2007 at 4:11 PM

See post Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:58 PM

However, if that votevets guy is still in active service would you agree he needs to cool his heels as well?

Absolutely. There is no gray area in my mind.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Hey, at least it gave the libloons yet ANOTHER opportunity to screw the troops over.

Because supporting the troops means fucking them over very hard, as many times as they can, so that they learn their lesson, the stupid Republican baby killers.

Think I’m joking???

benrand on August 3, 2007 at 4:17 PM

should read “gray area about it” — deserve the jokes for that sentence…

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:18 PM

I think a soldier, in uniform, makes a statement indicating the conflict we are involved in is moving in a positive direction is not politics. It is a educated opinion. The problem for the left is they have made the outcome of this conflict, in a treasonous manner, a political matter. To my way of thinking, you are either for us or against us. It seems the only defeats democrats do not accept are in elections. It is OK for our nation to lose wars. I don’t know about any civil war in Iraq, but I think we need one here to purge these bastards.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM

But do not question their patriotism or their support of the troops.

robo on August 3, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I don’t know about any civil war in Iraq, but I think we need one here to purge these bastards.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Isn’t that what elections are for?

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you’re not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn’t, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so.

Okay, first… the discussion pannel in question then had to be in a political setting… indicating that the panel itself was indeed a political action panel rather than a mere discussion panel.

As such, even though the person in uniform was making a statement in clarification of fact, not politics, that facts don’t matter in context of a Kos political discussion.

I think the “facts”, in this case, stand for themselves.

Lawrence on August 3, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Thanks 186: Video
186 on August 3 2007,at 4:03PM.

Just seen the video,talk about your emotions running high.
Who do theses guys think they are.It hits the fan at about
42:22.This guy says he will talk (staighten)the sargeant
outside.
He tells the sargeant he won,t were (HIS)uniform again.
It just hit me,not just today ,they think it’s their
military.And then Wesley Clark launches onto freedom of speech damage control.

It reminds me of some hollywood actor at clintons first
swearing in and the military jets flew over.He was livid,
the mike was still on.
He screamed what are they doing here,someone says relax their are,s now. Rush has the soundbite on this.

canopfor on August 3, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Michelle’s readers send a reminder of Kos community double standards when it comes to anti-war troops protesting in uniform.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Seems to me that the moderator was trying to save this good soldier from getting himself into trouble. Say what you will about the merits of the regulation, but it is a regulation. Don’t get angry at those at YKos for this one–it makes you all look bullheaded. You’re blaming them for an Army regulation that you do not like in this instance. Take it up with DoD.

sandman on August 3, 2007 at 4:47 PM

I would imagine that this guy was at the event for some time walking around in his uniform. I wonder if any of the moonbats bothered to point out the relevant UCMJ rules previous to his support for the troops? My guess is that they did not because they assumed he was anti-war and was carrying his absolute moral authority card.

csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM

csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM

I wouldn’t expect them to have a clue about the UCMJ. But the soldier certainly did. That’s the point.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:50 PM

sandman,

The moderator appears on his anti-mission website in uniform. This has everyting to do with the moderator not wanting to be upstaged by the SGT.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Daily Kos does not want to hear any good news from Iraq, even if they are from active duty soldiers in uniform. Of course Daily Kos will claim they support the troops. But that only applies when the soldier shares their same ideology.

SoulGlo on August 3, 2007 at 4:59 PM

The moderator appears on his anti-mission website in uniform.
bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 4:52 PM

What is the website

Guardian on August 3, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Guardian,

The moderator was Jon Soltz from VoteVets. His about page is here.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Seems like much ado over nothing.

Fairly amazing when dotting ones i’s and crossing ones t’s matters and when it does not.

I don’t see the political activity here. He does not appear to be espousing and political points of view. Typical moonbat tactics of trying to besmirch ones character as they have no intellectual honesty.

Still the left and main stream media promote double standards, one for the left (where there is no standard), and on the right (where slipping below the highest standard bring condemnation.)

MarkB on August 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM

The rule is that you can not wear your uniform to a political demonstration. It’s not clear to me that the YearlyKos falls in that category. I don’t believe there is a violation of the UCMJ here.

That said, it is ethically wrong to wear your military uniform to such a politically charged event and speak publicly. It gives the impression that you are speaking for the military, that the military is taking a political position. That’s how the military of banana republics are run, not the US military which prides itself on apolitical. More precisely, professional military people consider themselves above politics.

However, none of this is relevant to the behavior of the moderators at YearlyKos, who are outside the domain of the UCMJ. Quite clearly, debate and dissenting opinions are not welcome at the YearlyKos, despite Kos’ absurd contentioni that the DailyKos is superior to right wing websites in the exchange of ideas. The radical left who populate the DailyKos are doctrinaire ideologues who suffer no contrary ideas. They are an example of the Left in general which does not relish free speech and seeks in every argument not to rebut dissent but to close it down and pinch it off.

The bottom line is that the YearlyKos, the DailyKos, and the Left oppose free speech, which is profoundly un-American. Deep in their black little shriveled up hearts, they’re Stalinists who want to do their political rivals in, not argue with them.

Tantor on August 3, 2007 at 5:22 PM

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Thanks. Isn’t that a double standard? I sent him an email

Guardian on August 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Not being military savvy about rules myself, I have this question. How can this Jon Soltz tell a soldier or anyone to “stand down” if Jon Soltz is now a civilian?

moonsbreath on August 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I don’t see how what the soldier said was a political statement. What he said was that the surge is working and US deaths are down. Is that “political”?

Cutting off arms, limbs…like Genghis Khan…wasn’t that said by a solder in military garb?

This solder could be presidential material.

BTW..Jon Soltz and General Clark, what a-holes.

Captain America on August 3, 2007 at 5:41 PM

IMHI, like Cindy Sheehan, Jon Soltz is riding high of the fact that he is different from the other “progressives”. He is using his status as a soldier to influence people just as much as Cindy is using her status as a gold star mom to influence people. Talking like he is still talking to soldiers is part of the game.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 5:41 PM

I’m tired of this talk about Regulations.
Regardless, that’s all fine and dandy. So this man may get into trouble for wearing a uniform and asking a question at a KOS convention(absurd), but, so be it..
This moderator was a complete…showed absolutely zero respect for the uniform of this Country Or for the man asking the question.
That’s why this was such an uncomfortable moment for them. That’s why the audio is edited out, or what ever happened to the audio.
This moderator showed his true colors. And I’m glad. Put a face on KOS and make it real. That was real. That was a real jack…..can I cuss in here? :)
THey talk of shining the light…..they should be careful what they ask for. Shine On.

bridgetown on August 3, 2007 at 5:45 PM

I hope a major news outlet shows that clip of Jon Soltz dissing the soldier. I’m sure with enough digging someone can nail Soltz doing the same thing. His website is every bit as political as Kos. I fail to see the difference. By the way. Here he is IN UNIFORM on Olbermann.

Guardian on August 3, 2007 at 5:52 PM

bridgetown,

The video was provided by dailykos. They edited out the audio of the soldier’s question. Not sure why.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Guardian,

I don’t see him in uniform there. I see a Gen in uniform, but Soltz is a Capt.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 5:57 PM

oops. My bad. I thought it was him.

Guardian on August 3, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Is stating that current military operations are going well a political statement?

Because the more I think about it, I mean even Soltz said that he can’t ask “a political question,” implying that he could ask a non-political one. So I guess I’m wondering … Are politics really so tied into our war in Iraq that even saying, “Hey things are going better!” is now a political statement?

apollyonbob on August 3, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I am so sick and tired of these tin-foil hat liberal traitors dissing our military. If this is billed as a “political” function, then Kos needs to abide by McCain-Feingold.

S**** ‘em.

Liberals are the enemy within.

jdawg on August 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Is this a political meeting? Are they affiliated with a particular party?

Yes if you read DKos’s FAQ they clearly state they are a “Democratic Blog” dedicated to electing DEMOCRATS. That is why they got so pissed at Mama Cindy when she said she was running as a third party candidate against Nancy P.

As a former company commander, this soldier was wrong. We can’t excuse “wrong” because we happen to agree with it. To me, this is the litmus test: “If this had been the other way around (ie an anti-war soldier at a Republican rally) what would I do?” I’d enforce the rules. So for this one, I’d have to punish this guy. He did violate the UCMJ and he DID know better. EVERY Soldier knows better.

It’s cool that he went, it’s fine he stuck up for what he believed in. Speaking truth to insanity is fine… but he should have done it off duty and in civilian clothes. PERIOD. I don’t care if you introduce yourself as SGT so-and-so or MAJ this-or-that… but a uniform is for “official” business and the military is not in the political business.

Law and order is essential for the military. The military is about more than silly rules… it is about a code. It is about attention to detail and doing what you’re supposed to do. I can’t stand the left’s moral relativism and double standards. I refuse to stoop to their level.

With that being said… it is so like Kos to shout down respectful dissent rather than debate them on the facts. Usually it goes like this. You disagree, they label, then insult, they erect strawman, they burn strawman, label again, then troll rate…
It’s the kos way.

BadBrad on August 3, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Whatever happened, there probably weren’t many witnesses. Earlier, Klein filed this post:

I’m at YearlyKos, sitting in the back of the room at the “Military and Progressives Panel.” This looked, at least to me, like the marquee panel of the hour, and the organizers seemed to agree: It was placed in the Grand Ballroom. But the place is empty — a couple dozen attendees at most, a sea of empty tables stretching out. Whether this is a function of reduced Democratic insecurity over the relationship between progressives and the military or a simple lack of interest in the subject is anyone’s guess. But it is, to me, a surprise.

hat tip

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Also from the Corner:

in the YearlyKos program:

The Military and Progressives: Are They That Different?

This panel will examine the military, and how it embodies progressive values. We’ll also examine why conservatives gained the military vote and how progressives can get it back.

Panelists: John Soltz, Brandon Friedman, Ilona Meagher, Jon Power

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 6:17 PM

Watching that over at LGF was sickening to me. First off, they don’t allow you to hear what the guy said. What for? Just in case the YearlyKos Kids might learn something by accident? Ugly! It’s like watching old Eastern Block crapola.

Then Soltz talking about “his” regiment with such ownership. I understand rules and regulations, but this guy was beyond full of self righteous indignation. He looked like he wanted to crawl out of his skin while the soldier was talking. Watching that really made my stomach turn. Makes you feel like these guys go into the military so when they get out they can make a name for themselves trashing it. “Stand down” fo’ sho’ dude.

Absolutely sad the center of book ends regular military personel find themselves in. Say something out of uniform and you can’t possilbly know what you are talking about becuase you’re not “in” it. Say something in uniform and your breaking UMCJ rules. So, they do the heavy lifting and remain the silent sacrifice. Just sad.

Sultry Beauty on August 3, 2007 at 6:37 PM

We’ll also examine why conservatives gained the military vote and how progressives can get it back.

Haha! Bring ‘em home and find out, Libs!

RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Liberals are the “enemy within”, and the sooner this country learns that, the better off we all will be.

jdawg on August 3, 2007 at 6:49 PM

All you guys dissing him are missing the point…or at least want to keep an argument going.

He may have done wrong by the military standards, but he did right by other standards. Going to a convention bent on destroying what he stands for, where the majority wants the U.S. to be defeated, and wants the military to be defeated, and most want the military out of society all together. Some even think the military are made up of only puppets and dummies. Here is a man, who stands before a hostile group and challenges them. Did he break military code, probably, did he do wrong, the weak say yes.
The history of the military is full of brave men, who made choices that was against tradition, and knowingly paid the price to defend what is right.

You guys who cry about him breaking a rule (you even know the specific section), but don’t honor his charge. Put me in a foxhole with you whiners or him, and I would choose him…my chances would be better with a brave man, than a whimpering, whining, blogger.

You are no better than the KosKids, you just have a rule book…same sniveling.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM

That soldier took an oath to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC – I think he was just following his oath.

jdawg on August 3, 2007 at 7:26 PM

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.
3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted

I do not see where he was sanctioning the cause, or there is an inference that he was supporting the cause, or that he was furthering the cause, nor that he was sponsoring the cause.

You have to come up with a better rule than those posted. Sounds like he was doing the opposite.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 7:27 PM

From May to September 2003, Soltz served as a Captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom, deploying logistics convoys with the 1st Armored Division. During 2005, Soltz was mobilized for 365 days at Fort Dix New Jersey, training soldiers for combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also served his country with distinction in the Kosovo Campaign as a Tank Platoon Leader between June and December 2000………….John Kerry Jr.

sonnyspats1 on August 3, 2007 at 7:32 PM

the ass speaking at the beginning is none other than josh lansdale, famous for telling lies about being cast aside by the va on behalf of claire mccaskill.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/claire-mccaskills-bogus-soldier.html

the republlican congressman he’s talking about is mark kirk: a navy vet and combat veteran of kosovo aand the first gulf war. though we know this doesn’t matter to the screeching diet-maoists at dkos, he’s a pro-gay-marriage, pro-gun-control, abortion moderate who voted against the suurge and supports a phased withdrawl.

so, the bs is hip deep from the first moments of the video.

jummy on August 3, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Unbelievable.

And predictable.

To do something both unbelievable and predictable at the very same time, you pretty much have to be a modern neo-liberal.

How do they stand the stench of this kind of hypocrisy?

“Absolute moral authority” apparently ain’t what it once was.

Professor Blather on August 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 7:22 PM

But if he had been critical of the war you would have branded him as a coward, not worthy of wearing the uniform, blah blah blah.

You have your mind made up and set in stone – kind of like your arch rivals the Kos kids. Only ideology makes you different. Rules fit when convenient.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM

The more I think about this, the angrier I get.

Had I been consulted, I would have suggested to the SGT he not go in uniform, it was a matter of poor judgment, to walk into a storm carrying a lightning rod, that said;

CPT Soltz wouldn’t know if the question were political or not until it had been asked. Instead, he sat up on his stage and used his commission to bully prior restraint on a Soldier.

And even if the question were political, that is not “engaging in politics, which has generally been interpreted to mean running for office or campaigning. Attending a political event is not included and if it were, the CPT would have been setting the SGT up for failure by not turning him out when he first showed up at the event.

The CPT is welcome to come have a “CPT to SGT” talk with me anytime he likes. If the SGT here didn’t teach him what a real NCO is like, I think I can manage.

He’s out of line and is misusing the regs for his own political purposes.

The CPT is a partisan hack using his military service as a shield from criticism. Period.

RTO Trainer on August 3, 2007 at 8:17 PM

I wouldn’t expect them to have a clue about the UCMJ. But the soldier certainly did. That’s the point.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Good point. My son, who has been a soldier just over 1 year, is very aware of the rules.

csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 8:23 PM

CPT Soltz, based on the AKO White Pages, appears to be a Reservist, 2-312th TSB, which means he get to inflict misery on Guardsmen training at Ft. Dix to go overseas.

RTO Trainer on August 3, 2007 at 8:34 PM

In lieu of Trackback (it always tells me I’m sending too fast):

Someone You Should Know: Anti-War Hack, Commissioned Officer, Bully

Not 1LT Reickhoff this time.

RTO Trainer on August 3, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Astounding.

The impermeable Chickenhawk Axiom, which insists that non-military folk are summarily disqualified from advocating, supporting, or opining on any military matters, seems to be completely abandoned here. Leaving aside the side issue of whether it was an impropriety to speak up while in uniform, Clark’s lecture after the fact makes it quite clear that members of the military have no business voicing or even forming opinions about matters of state (in this case, namely, the efficacy of a military campaign). Who then bears both the service-hardened credibility and the civilian status required to opine with authority? The only people not summarily disqualified would be retired military personnel… like Wes Clark and ‘Kos!

flip on August 3, 2007 at 9:14 PM

I think Soltz was out of line with his public threat to the soldier. If this was a POLITICAL EVENT, than this convention comes under McCain-Feingold. And if so, then maybe somebody ought to file a complaint with the FEC and make sure they follow each and every provision of reporting. If this was not a politcial event, then the issue of a soldier in uniform is moot. And in that case Soltz probably abused his authority.

The soldier in question was NOT politiking. He was not campaigning. He was not passing out campaign literature, registering voters, advocating for a political candidate or running for office. He was asking a question. We don’t know for sure what the question was because the A-holes at KOS censored him.

I understand that there are restrictions on the military participating in politics. But if this was a POLITICAL event, then the KOSITES had better follow the rules. If not, then get off the soldier’s back.

georgej on August 3, 2007 at 9:15 PM

How is this Yearly Kos panel fundamentally different than a public seminar or panel discussion sponsored, say, by some university’s political science department?

The billing and format were that of an academic discussion of issues related to the military, not a campaign rally or a demonstration.

LagunaDave on August 3, 2007 at 9:28 PM

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn.

Where does his comment fit into the paragraph above? How does it prove official sponsorship?

Despite what the military tells its personnel, I think this guy has some wiggle room based on the language in this paragraph.

Miss_Anthrope on August 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM

If this violation applies here, and if the Moderater still has authority over this Sergeant, then there is no argument on that. But it did seem like he was trying to intimidate the guy before he spoke.

What the Republicans will fail to capitalize on will be the fact that they cut his mike off while he was arguing for the Surge. I hope I’m wrong…maybe some of the Candidates will mention it.

Dork B. on August 3, 2007 at 10:48 PM

But if he had been critical of the war you would have branded him as a coward, not worthy of wearing the uniform, blah blah blah.

You have your mind made up and set in stone – kind of like your arch rivals the Kos kids. Only ideology makes you different. Rules fit when convenient.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 7:54 PM

This may be hard for you to believe, but I do have standards and beliefs, those standards are that when you wear the uniform you represent the U.S. honorably…or take it off. He wore it proudly.
You obviously think that having any ideology is wrong. And you think all ideology is different but wrong. And you know there are different ideiologies but you think they are the same. What a weird way of thinking. Which is why I chose the foxhole analogy, in time of crisis, you would buckle because you cannot tell the difference between right (honorable service) and wrong (dis-honoring our service).

Your the type of person who thinks Christianity and Islamic religion is the same evil. Or that we were just a wrong as the communist country’s during the cold war.

Aren’t you embarassed by exposing yourself with that argument?

See? That was easy…even you can now understand where you are weak, and that soldier was strong…he has ideals, you think all ideals are the same. I honor our service people, Kos dis-honors them…you think I am the same as Kos. I think you have the reasononing ability of a baboon.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Based on what the military tells it’s personnel, the SGT is entirely in the clear.

Except that his First Shirt might be annoyed to be bothered about it by a sanctimonious outsider officer because the SGT probably wanted to annoy the piss out of some wingnuts.

Mission Accomplished!

RTO Trainer on August 3, 2007 at 10:52 PM

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Did you ever serve? Insult me all you like – it doesn’t change the fact that you are talking out of your rear.

Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 12:20 AM

csdeven on August 3, 2007 at 8:23 PM

I had seen you mention that before. Best regards for his safety from an old vet.

Bradky on August 4, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Three minutes after Clark talks about addressing the political concerns of soldiers he talks about not allowing men in uniform to get mixed up in politics.

I guess only certain political view should be addresed. Since you can’t see the audience I’ve got to wonder if there were any leftist thinking soldiers in the room or wandering around the convention involved in any other discussions. Apparently the guy in the audience didn’t have any trouble getting into this discussion.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 7:39 AM

Seems to me that the moderator was trying to save this good soldier from getting himself into trouble. Say what you will about the merits of the regulation, but it is a regulation. Don’t get angry at those at YKos for this one–it makes you all look bullheaded. You’re blaming them for an Army regulation that you do not like in this instance. Take it up with DoD.

That’s baloney. He didn’t want to hear the question. He was looking at where the soldier was standing all along while Clark was talking and then he treid to end it quickly. He even said “We’re out of time.” If this is a violation then the soldier was already in violation being there. If the moderator was legit(not a dishonest, whining leftist in other words) he would have let the soldier speak, allowed comments and then took the soldier aside and informed him he was in violation of a regulation. His anger at the questioner shows all. The moderator’s all about changing the military except for that one rule?

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 8:10 AM

This is so much like Middle East Propaganda. If you don’t agree with them, THEY silence you. This should not happen in America.

abinitioadinfinitum on August 4, 2007 at 9:55 AM

I think the “moderator” was the Left’s idea of what an American solider is, an egomaniac barking orders and thinly veiled threats to intimidate people.

TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 11:51 AM

If being at a political function in uniform is restricted why didn’t Clark or anyone else point this out to him before he spoke?

darwin on August 4, 2007 at 12:35 PM

He was wearing part of his uniform but not all – decorations for sure. If you remove the rank and nametags it is okay to wear – not my choice but some do, more common to see people with the fatigue jacket only which is pretty comfortable.

Best to check AR 670-1, no more mixing of uniform parts/PT gear, etc.

SGT should probably have skipped the uniform. If not a violation, it sure is a distractor from the point he was trying to make.

Bradky –

Did you ever serve? Insult me all you like – it doesn’t change the fact that you are talking out of your rear.

Modified Chickenhawk Technique?

major john on August 4, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Pajamas Media has video of the SGT’s question

Not at all political, is it?

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Not at all political, is it?

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Didn’t you know that truth is political?

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh has already been discharged. He has every right enshrined under the Constitution, including those of free speech and peaceful assembly.

And anyone that thinks otherwise, quite frankly, is legitimately and objectively un-American.

Oh, the irony.

Seixon on August 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM

LOL faithfully and perfectly to a leftist line? Now that is funny. One of the 26% that supports George Bush disqualifies me from the elite left off the bat I would think.
This is the internet – am I supposed to be all that worried if someone thinks I’m credible? I’m not a tool for either party. Where do you stand?

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:58 PM

If I understand your response, you are claiming to be a Bush supporter, even though your “26%” quote would seem to be wrong, and seems to be a slap at the President. But then, I am not sure what you support him in, so maybe I’m missing the point.

I read HotAir pretty faithfully, and have probably read 200-300 of your posts over the last year, but maybe I somehow have the wrong impressive of “where you stand”. Little help, folks? Anyone else have Bradky figured as a supporter of Bush and persona non grata among the Moonbats? I am ready and willing to stand corrected.

As for where I stand, I guess that depends on the issue, but I count myself as a conservative, and not necessarily a Republican. I am not a registered Republican, if that means anything. I never vote for Democrats, Bill Clinton having cured me of that in 1992. The only Democrat in the country that I know of that I could support would be Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.

I have commented ad nauseum on my problems with the GOP over the last year, from spending to ethics to the war on terror to immigration. Does that answer your question?

Jaibones on August 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Two thoughts on the soldier at the event:

- Soltz seemed to wait to caution him until he got the gist of the message, in opposition to his own douchebag leftism. So much for just being concerned that the soldier might speak about politics while in uniform.

- Wasn’t this forum addressing the wider issue of the military and military policies in the eyes of the attendees, and not necessarily partisan politics? And if so, isn’t the application of this policy very much a gray area?

Jaibones on August 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM

I have picture of an anti-war in uniform holding a sign at a weekly rally in Anacortes WA
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/245892294_16b8d8d047.jpg Word is from the regulars that he is just a phony, but it proves the point that the left is not as outraged at seeing a man in uniform making a political statement as this guy is pretending to be.

Gwillie on August 4, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Jaibones on August 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM

No slap at Bush from me – I thought he hit 26% at some point. For starters.
- Iraq war? Support it and feel it was won a few years ago. Problem is that Bush has let the Democrats frame it as a loss when he should have been sticking to point about winning the peace.
- Immigration bill? supported Bush’s stance.
- Bush’s stand on taxes? support that too.

If I were going to be categorized I suppose moderate independent would be the closest.
Where we may disagree is in the lack of accomplishments by republicans over six years in power and hearing from some how we “really need to get the majority back”. They had a chance to reform social security, pass a better immigration bill, and a host of other initiatives. It is not a high school rivalry and the Republicans are going to have to really convince me if they want my votes for the house and senate.
But in these parts moderate is viewed as RINO, CINO, traitor, etc. on too many occasions. I used to think the Republicans were the party of inclusion but not so much anymore.
Even you can’t resist from the name calling because you think you know my party affiliations. It almost seems as people want the Republicans to get blown out next year. Persuading the moderates and left of center dems to vote R requires a different strategy.

Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Modified Chickenhawk Technique?

major john on August 4, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Not at all — but he had that coming based on his last post to me.

Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2