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.

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

I’m In ur moonbat meetup, messin with ur panel discussionz.

Bad Candy on August 3, 2007 at 2:04 PM

wow.

jummy on August 3, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Funny how they say it was wrong to “engage in a sort of moral blackmail” That is the left’s MO.

Gwillie on August 3, 2007 at 2:06 PM

As I recall, while in uniform, one cannot take part in politcal activities. This includes attending rallies, even writing letters to Congressfolks criticizing a policy.

You can do these things as “James Lee,” but “GMM2 James Lee USN” could not.

This was a Q&A session, but was part of an overall very political event. Not quite sure where the rules would put this specific situation. We were always told if you weren’t sure, error on the side of caution.

JamesLee on August 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Oh, and, BTW, I think this is further proof that we can seriously question their “support” of the troops.

JamesLee on August 3, 2007 at 2:08 PM

“The argument appears to be that you’re not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform”

That’s BS the anti-war left is always trying to use soldiers in uniform(whether their in the military or not)to protest the war….of course none of the Dems that go there well be asked about this event will they?

mlong on August 3, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Somehow I don’t think this guy is in any kind of trouble for supporting the mission of his branch of service. To call that political activity is just crazy. If some Kossack had tried to burn an American flag and this guy intervened would that be considered inappropriate political speech? Only in a dream world.

rivlax on August 3, 2007 at 2:10 PM

From the post

that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail

You mean like the left is trying to do to Matt Sanchez right now?

Idiots.

Bad Candy on August 3, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Everyone surprised by this, raise your hand.

No one?

Enrique on August 3, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Anyone got the exact location where they are holding this crappy convention in Chicago? I want to make it a point never to give whereever they are conducting this insanity my business, especially if they are going to cater to moonbat ranters like Kos and his ilk.

pilamaye on August 3, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Everyone surprised by this, raise your hand.

Not in the least. Going to be real noisy in a couple of months when the progress reports start rolling out, what with all of them sticking their fingers in their ears and humming really loud!

JamesLee on August 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM

K OS = CHAOS

The Race Card on August 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Is stating a fact while in uniform illegal?

Connie on August 3, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Typical.

Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 2:17 PM

If I read this correctly you can participate just not in uniform.

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/ethics_regulation/1344-10.html

elBarto on August 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM

JamesLee on August 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM

You are pretty close… the main thing is that military personnel may not participate in political rallies while in uniform. They can raise funds, participate in political organizations and certainly write to their representatives but must ensure they don’t claim that their military status represents an official position.
Hate groups and groups that advocate overthrow of the government are not acceptable while serving, regardless of whether or not they have the uniform on at the time.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM

They can’t deal with folks they can’t dismiss as “chickenhawks.”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Some rules for the military in this arena:

DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6 (pdf).

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Yep, I agree with JamesLee on this one. Our heroes pretty much have to keep thier mouths shut at events such as these.

Very sad indeed that the ones out there dying for us and for those idiot Kossie’s, can’t even tell everyone what is really going on the battlefields. No one bothers to ask them, the ONLY ones who truly know.

SouthernPride on August 3, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Meant to say….while actually wearing their uniforms.

SouthernPride on August 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I,m not sure Allah,but i think they can say anything
they went unless they are in a theatre of operations.

However,this is the last person they want to hear from.
Support of the troops in all…..yada yada yada.

And at the Kos’s yearly,this must of blown a gasket
in their minds as to how the H!!L did this soldier
get near the mike let alone ask the question.

Support of the troops ya know….Uum ya.

canopfor on August 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM

You are pretty close… the main thing is that military personnel may not participate in political rallies while in uniform

I knew it was something like that. Been a few years since that’s been any concern.

JamesLee on August 3, 2007 at 2:24 PM

and DODD 1344.10 PDF

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 2:24 PM

A soldier in uniform saying that we are winning a war is now considered political activity?

Does this amount to an admission by the left that their politic goal is for America to lose wars?

If this man gets punished by the military for saying what he said where he said it in uniform, there will be hell to pay from people like me who are fed up. Mark my words.

mjgreco on August 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM

SouthernPride on August 3, 2007 at 2:20 PM

They aren’t prohibited from telling their story or what they have seen, unless it is classified of course. It is only the venue in which there are restrictions imposed. The rule while seemingly restrictive helps protect the military image by not having any political oriented group taking advantage of a parsed word or comment.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM

All the soldier had to do was remove his shirt. Ask the question again. Put back on shirt. He would be legally “out of uniform” and no one can touch him.

Guardian on August 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM

mjgreco on August 3, 2007 at 2:25 PM

The military is given regular training on what is acceptable conduct. Saying we are winning the war is okay – saying it at a political activity with uniform on is not, unless the person is a public affairs officer or commander with the permission to speak for the service.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Is this a political meeting? Are they affiliated with a particular party? I thought it was just a random website that leaned WAAAAY left. They aren’t affiliated with either political party.

In any event, his question was valid about the surge working. The problem is and always was Rumsfeld. He was the barrier to progress there militarily, and now that he’s gone things are getting better. That’s how the new efforts should be reported.

He asked what people there thought about the surge that was going well, that our troops were doing a good job. I think that’s highly appropriate considering so many of them think our soldiers are failures (like Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, et al). Pointing out that WE aren’t failing in a public forum should not be prohibited whether in uniform or not.

ThackerAgency on August 3, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Yeah, military members aren’t supposed to speak about things outside of their professional purview while in uniform. We’ll get PR briefs all the time, where an officer takes an hour or so to talk to us about what we can and can’t say when being interviewed by the media, and the same rules would apply for a “debate” like this one. Still, it’s extremely hypocritical of the Kossaks to act this way. If that soldier had stood up and denounced the war, you can bet your ass they would have been repeating his words for the next decade.

c6gunner on August 3, 2007 at 2:29 PM

It didn’t seem to bother them that a soldier was attending YearlyKos–an inherently political event–in uniform… the opportunistic and sudden respect for institutions and the selective outrage is very nearly shameless.

DaveS on August 3, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Is it wrong that I misread that as “The Daily Kos was cut off” and a smile came to my face ?

William Amos on August 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

The moderator largely freaked out….he demanded…..He demanded…..he closed the panel…….and stalked off the stage

Are these people actually adults, or 11-year olds with overactive glands?

(My apologies to 11-year olds)

infidel4life on August 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Guardian on August 3, 2007 at 2:27 PM

A hypothetical:

Soldier A appears as this one did in uniform at a political event in uniform and makes a statement despite being trained on his responsibility about ethics and conduct. Soldier B is his immediate supervisor who sees it happen; she is obligated to at least counsel him verbally at the very least. Soldier C, commander of A&B decides he doesn’t like the political bent of the Soldier A’s answer. He demands that the soldier be punished with a demotion. He does so under the rules of conduct, his opinion known only to himself. Soldier A loses a stripe and a couple of hundred dollars a month.
Or Soldier A makes a statement that the “war is a waste”. Soldier B, a hulking 280 pound he-man organizes a little “beat down” for Soldier A. Solider C, the commander, suspects that this has happened, but since no one is talking can do nothing.

The rules are in place to protect the soldiers from those type of instances as well as the service image. Part of military discipline is to accept the orders one is given. Not wearing a uniform and giving an opinion at an event like this is one of those.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

There was a U.S. military man in the audience there?

I’m surprised he got into the place without being spit on or called a baby-killer.

Vyce on August 3, 2007 at 2:36 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, unless, of course, you’re a liberal critisizing the war, the President, and/or the country as a whole.

There. Fixed it.

crazy_legs on August 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Yeah actually, he shouldn’t have been there in uniform, irrespective of message.

Had he simply worn civilian clothes, there wouldn’t have been an issue.

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.

John from OPFOR on August 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Which is also why you did not see Maj Tally Parham show up in uniform as Edwards’s guest. At least she was that smart. But, it was wrong for her to be a tool by allowing Edwards to use her as a prop and when CNN addressed her as SCANG Major Tally Parham. The use of her military title in that setting was wrong.

rbb on August 3, 2007 at 2:38 PM

Standing up and saying the military is effective while in uniform would be OK in my book. In a sane world, this wouldn’t be a partisan ‘political’ issue.

A shame it is a partisan issue because some people are poltically invested in military failure – and there’s a another name for that…

forest on August 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Standing up and saying the military is effective while in uniform would be OK in my book. In a sane world, this wouldn’t be a partisan ‘political’ issue.

In a sane world, the war itself wouldn’t be a partisan political issue, and both sides of the isle would be fully invested in victory despite the party affiliation of the man in the Oval Office.

crazy_legs on August 3, 2007 at 2:42 PM

The enforcement of UCMJ is not in the moderator’s job description.

Stephen M on August 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

That photo of Markos is always so creepy.

Blake on August 3, 2007 at 2:46 PM

The enforcement of UCMJ is not in the moderator’s job description.

Stephen M on August 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

But self-discipline and devotion to core values and ethics of one’s service are most definitely in the military member’s job description.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Moral blackmail is for Liberals only. Any of them with lackluster military careers are eligible to betray their country or offer insane military perspectives that are contrary to the current administration.

Now, anyone with experience that reflects in a positive fashion on the US military will stand down and shut up or the Dems will scratch your eyes out.

Hening on August 3, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Simply awesome! I hope someone can dig up video of this…… I have to see it!

ericire12 on August 3, 2007 at 2:54 PM

They do not recognize the authority of a uniform, therefore there was no wrong.

It reminds me of an atheist quoting the bible to support his belief that the God doesn’t exist.

Is this “event a news event or a political event? Was the YouTube a political event or a news event? If you question someone in an open forum is it a news or political event? Does it matter? Anything to diss KosKids is fine with me.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just ocurred…

Was Wes Clark in uniform when he said that?

CrazyFool on August 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Anything to diss KosKids is fine with me.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

I understand your sentiment and personally could care less about Kos. But if we are truly supportive of the troops we should strive to avoid having them being used by ANY political group.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:01 PM

I’m watching the live broadcast of the Yearly Kos and the audience members are even heckling people who are liberal….
just not their type of liberal.

terryannonline on August 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Standing up and saying the military is effective while in uniform would be OK in my book. In a sane world, this wouldn’t be a partisan ‘political’ issue.

You can’t participate in any political event in uniform, regardless if you’re screaming “no blood for oil” or just standing next to the commie doing it. Regs are specific about that and this guy has been throw enough briefings to know that (and his unit will eventually face the JAG gauntlet for it).

Though I do admit the idea has run throw my mind, the consequences (besides endless briefings) such as watada’s coming out of the woodworks is just too great.

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM

through*

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:04 PM

TheEJS,

So who made the moderator at a KOS forum responsible for enforcing army regs?

The truth of the matter is they were embarrised and the soldier didn’t fit into their script. Good for him!

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM

The military is already a tool of the liberals when they keep saying that the troops want his and the troops want that. I don’t understand all the regulations against them giving political opinions, but I’d certainly like to hear from them more often what they think about all this.

frankj on August 3, 2007 at 3:06 PM

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM

It’s about self-discipline. If a troop can’t follow a simple instruction about something like this, do you really have much confidence in how well they are able to follow orders in life and death combat situations? I don’t care about the moderator. Our military exists for specific purposes and politics is not one of those purposes.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:08 PM

So who made the moderator at a KOS forum responsible for enforcing army regs?

The soldier, sailor, airmen, or Marine is the one who’s responsible. He had every right not to answer any questions to give away his name, CO, or unit.

I’m guessing you misread my post, thinking I’m advocating the use of civilians as NKVD commissars. I wrote about general regs where military members cannot go to political events in uniform unless it’s authorized, such as the president visiting Bragg.

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:01 PM

If you think this soldier was used, you are wrong. This soldier stood up for what he believed.
I think your statement of

…having them being used by ANY political group

insults the military soldiers who you apparently don’t think, have the ability to think for themselves.
Show me where he was “used” what proof do you have that he was a puppet and not standing tall for his own beliefs.

Best not to dishonor the military with empty rhetoric.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM

So no one had a problem with a soldier in uniform attending the event until he opened his mouth and refused to spout the defeatists propaganda. He was there to speak Truth to Power, just not the truth they wanted. We all know where they can go to get stories long on narrative and short of truth, not don’t we.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 3, 2007 at 3:12 PM

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM

You miss the point entirely. If I didn’t think our military didn’t have the ability to think for themselves I wouldn’t have been one of them for a quarter of a century. He may have been standing tall for his beliefs but he knew in the back of his mind he was not supposed to being doing in that manner. Discipline is what makes a military effective – he didn’t exercise it.
The military is used by both political parties and rather shamelessly at times.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jCnQxtn9v9w

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-G9SMnVNBUM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k5xrhsFWKKA

progressive democratics are now “supporting the troops” by stalking them to their homes and shooting them point blank in the chest.

http://digg.com/politics/Deranged_Moonbat_Shoots_Airman_on_Fourth_of_July

jummy on August 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Wes Clark at yearly kos. I feel sick.

Tanya on August 3, 2007 at 3:18 PM

You’re surprised?

Allahpundit on August 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM

It’s about self-discipline. If a troop can’t follow a simple instruction about something like this, do you really have much confidence in how well they are able to follow orders in life and death combat situations? I don’t care about the moderator. Our military exists for specific purposes and politics is not one of those purposes.

Your reading much too much into this. The soldier did us all a favor by speaking out in support of the mission. It is a minor infraction at most. If I remember correctly, there were plenty of soldiers in uniform at the MilBloggers convention.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM

weasle “let’s bomb the ruskies then the Hungarians” clark at anything… I feel sick.

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM

It’s about self-discipline. If a troop can’t follow a simple instruction about something like this, do you really have much confidence in how well they are able to follow orders in life and death combat situations? I don’t care about the moderator. Our military exists for specific purposes and politics is not one of those purposes.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Oh man, an even more stupid statement. I should have read this one before my other posting.

You think that this man standing up for his rights and country can’t now be trusted in combat? All they had to do was answer this soldiers question or comment. If the Dem leaders can’t stand up to one man in uniform…how are they going to lead him?

I would go into combat with this man anyday, he knows what he is fighting for…unlike the men he challenged.

right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 3:21 PM

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM

There’s no gray in the UCMJ. This guy may have done what is morally right, but legally wrong. We have regs in place to ensure the military doesn’t become a Praetorian Guard, deciding who is caesar. MilBlogger conventions, while political, aren’t political events designed to promote one party over the other.

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:21 PM

He was there to speak Truth to Power, just not the truth they wanted. We all know where the KosKids can get news from Iraq that’s long on narrative and short on truth, now don’t we.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 3, 2007 at 3:23 PM

If a troop can’t follow a simple instruction about something like this, do you really have much confidence in how well they are able to follow orders in life and death combat situations?

Oh, please. That is just an idiotic statement. I mean, that is just such a stretch, from wearing a uniform against regulations, to following orders in combat…

reaganaut on August 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Who is us? Conservatives who support the war? If he were to be demoted will you send him the difference in his paycheck. When I went through basic and questioned why we had to put our name and social on our friggin underwear and t-shirts, the TI told us “Don’t you get it. Simple F*n instructions. If you can’t do this do i want you with a rifle covering me?” Minor or major infraction the hallmark of a good troop is discipline first.

Was the milblogger convention hosted by a particular political organization?

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

reaganaut on August 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

That is your opinion. Twenty five years in uniform says mine is right.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:25 PM

About the regulations, this isn’t about freedom of expression or anything like that being denied to the soldiers. It is about the official nature of being in uniform, and making statements that may (or may not) be contrary to the official statements of the military itself.

Think of it as PR for a corporation: If you are a delivery driver for CocaCola, and while wearing your uniform talk at a gathering about how great Pepsi is, that isn’t good. But the being in uniform gives it at least the appearance of being an official Coke statement.

Just to avoid any parsing and misunderstanding about what a member of the military might say, ALL such statements are taboo while in uniform.

JamesLee on August 3, 2007 at 3:26 PM

reaganaut on August 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

First this slips, then that slips, next we have military personnel deciding what is better for their personal gain over others. A lot of UCMJ is bs, I’m not going to disagree, but the rules are there for a reason.

I agree with Bradky.

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM

TheEJS,
You still haven’t explained why the moderator 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. The is very clear that the moderator didn’t want the support of the mission expressed.

By the way, my son’s mission when his unit returns to Iraq will be to guard a high ranking officer…. as he says, to take a bullet for him. So I would be careful with the Praetorian Guard references if I were you.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM

“The yKos program lists the panelists but doesn’t say who the moderator was.”

Well, whoever he was, I say we ought hunt this guy down, not matter where he is, no matter where he runs to, no matter how much he tries to hide, and when we find him…. WE GIVE HIM A WEDGIE!

[Grin]

I’m deliberately staying out of Chicago this weekend, even though Lollapalooza is going on and there are some bands I’d like to see. The temptation to “participate” at this Gathering of Chickens might be too strong for me to control. And I’d probably say, do, or gesture something I might later regret.

Even if he violated regulations, I’m glad that soldier stood up and spoke up. The treatment he received from the moderator is just more proof that liberals hate the military AND the troops. And that is the lesson America needs to learn and reinforce.

georgej on August 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM

bnelson wrote: there were plenty of soldiers in uniform at the milbloggers convention.

Maybe two or three, most of us were in civies. But the conference is not a political event, it was about soldier journalism.

Most of us support the mission, yes. But we weren’t there to support any political candidates or political platforms.

John from OPFOR on August 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Guess John Kerry’s Military Field Jacket didn’t count during the Viet Nam Days

400lb Gorilla on August 3, 2007 at 3:30 PM

You still haven’t explained why the moderator demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit.

It’s called free speech. You can ask me for that info and I can reply you’re a jack4ss. I don’t give a wooden nickle about the moderator, the responsibility is on the trooper.

Praetorian Guard reference stays in place, unless you want a lecture about their involvement in the deaths of caesars for political gains.

TheEJS on August 3, 2007 at 3:30 PM

You’re surprised?

Yes, although in retrospect, I realize I shouldn’t be.

You know how you sometimes feel ashamed for people who don’t have the sense to be ashamed of themselves? Mostly like that.

Tanya on August 3, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Thanks John,

Wish there was video of this, but do we know it was a political break out? What was the topic of the break out? Maybe it was a “fact finding” topic and he was providing facts about the mission?

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Don’t know how true this is:

The moderator was Jon Soltz from VoteVets, a Captain in the Army who issued a lawfull order to a Sergeant violated the rules governing wear of the uniform.

But if true would explain a lot. In other words, he was there to give his opionion but was bound and determined not to have anyone upstage him.

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:35 PM

I’m deliberately staying out of Chicago this weekend, even though Lollapalooza is going on and there are some bands I’d like to see.

georgej on August 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Wait … so, you’re saying that Lollapalooza and Yearly Kos are … not the same thing?

Jaibones on August 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Meet Jon Soltz, Co-Founder and Chairman, VoteVets.org

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Military man in uniform supporting our troops: Not OK
Ex-Military life-long politicians dissing our troops: OK

I’m going with the uniformed soldier, OK?

fogw on August 3, 2007 at 3:45 PM

umm but it’s ok for John F Kerry to testify to atroscities in Viet nam while in uniform?

GREENTURTLE on August 3, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

With genuine deference to you for your 25 years in uniform and superior knowledge of the military, Bradky, it will be a big boost for your credibility here when you (finally) come up with an opinion that does not hew faithfully and perfectly to a leftist line.

Jaibones on August 3, 2007 at 3:51 PM

John, Allah, et al,
An interesting post here:

If you claim that Yearlykos is a political rally that a soldier cannot wear a uniform to–and not just a gathering of bloggers–then Yearlykos comes under McCain/Feingold restrictions.

Choose wisely, grasshoppah….

bnelson44 on August 3, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Jaibones on August 3, 2007 at 3:51 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

Clip is here.

Listen real carefully you can hear Wes Clark telling the moderator to “be real careful” and “no..no..no..” as the moderator threatens to “come down there” and “take the soldier outside”.

186k on August 3, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Perhaps if he had said that he thought the surge wasn’t working it would be okay. It’s funny, isn’t that votevets goof doing the moderating still in service. He claims to be a CPT too. Does anyone know for sure?

Catie96706 on August 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Perhaps if he had said that he thought the surge wasn’t working it would be okay. It’s funny, isn’t that votevets goof doing the moderating still in service. He claims to be a CPT too. Does anyone know for sure?

Catie96706 on August 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Sorry for the double post-darn you Comcast.

Catie96706 on August 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM

umm but it’s ok for John F Kerry to testify to atroscities in Viet nam while in uniform?

GREENTURTLE on August 3, 2007 at 3:46 PM

I may be incorrect but I think that Kerry was already a veteran when he testified. 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.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM

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.

Hasn’t General Petraeus been “debating facts about current military strategy” everyday for the last two months?

Mike Honcho on August 3, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Perhaps if he had said that he thought the surge wasn’t working it would be okay. It’s funny, isn’t that votevets goof doing the moderating still in service. He claims to be a CPT too. Does anyone know for sure?

Catie96706 on August 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Had he said that I think the comments in this thread would be markedly different.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM

I’m willing to bet there were other soldiers there in uniform who asked questions or made statements that were perfectly acceptable to the KosKids. Then one stood up and messed it all up by invoking the truth. We all know how much this pisses those people off.

Kowboy on August 3, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Well Bradky my point is they would have cheered it and hailed him a hero. Perhaps you feel the surge isn’t working as well but my hubby gets regular emails from the group that took over from his unit and they say that now that it’s in place things are really looking a lot better and it’s something that should have been done a few years ago.
However, if that votevets guy is still in active service would you agree he needs to cool his heels as well? Perhaps not as I know you don’t like the war or W but I kept quiet about the what a buffon I thought Clark was when I was in but maybe I shouldn’t have.

Catie96706 on August 3, 2007 at 4:11 PM

more common to see people with the fatigue jacket only which is pretty comfortable.

Bradky on August 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM

I wore my peacoat until it was threadbare. I really should invest in another one. They were heavy, but the warmest thing I had in my closet in winter.

Kowboy on August 3, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2