Video: Pajamas Media interviews soldier who spoke up at Yearly Kos; Update: Soltz’s VoteVets bio features photo of him in uniform

posted at 2:11 pm on August 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

Even more interesting than the rules governing what he did yesterday will be the rules governing what he can do this week. The media’s going to want to talk to him as much as his commanders are going to want to stop that from happening lest it draw more attention to his probable breach of military regs yesterday. Presumably there’s nothing they can do to stop him once he’s off duty and out of uniform — or can they, given his misconduct? If they can’t, expect him to turn up on Hannity & Colmes imminently.

Meanwhile, enjoy the absurdity of Jon Soltz in high dudgeon over someone else trading on the moral authority of his military service to push a political point. Soltz is the head of the anti-war veterans’ group VoteVets; he’s on cable news every other day precisely because he’s a vet whose view of the war coincides with the media’s. He’s not wearing his uniform in those appearances but he might as well be. The only significant ethical difference between him and the mystery soldier is that an observer might think the mystery soldier is speaking as an official military spokesman. Did anyone there think that was the case? Ezra Klein didn’t seem to.

Click the image to watch.

Update: Exhibit A in leveraging one’s uniform — or “shiny uniform,” as nutroots icon Glenn Ellensburg Greenwald derisively has it — for political legitimacy. Vets for Freedom does the same thing, of course, but then VFF hasn’t thrown any public tantrums when confronted by a soldier in dress making a point they don’t agree with. Thanks to Matt H. for catching that.

ykos.jpg

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

…I guarantee you if this homo was ever in a combat environment…
logis on August 4, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Uh oh. toast…
in…
3…
2…
1…

NightmareOnKStreet on August 4, 2007 at 6:04 PM

CORRECTION TO ABOVE: “homo” ONLY should have been in bold as in:

…I guarantee you if this homo was ever in a combat environment…
logis on August 4, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Uh oh. toast…
in…
3…
2…
1…

CAN WE PUH-LEEZ HAVE A PREVIEW FEATURE???

NightmareOnKStreet on August 4, 2007 at 6:08 PM

WOW! THAT TOAST WAS QUICK! U DA MAN.

NightmareOnKStreet on August 4, 2007 at 6:10 PM

CAN WE PUH-LEEZ HAVE A PREVIEW FEATURE???

I go to patterico.com, use its, and post here if I need to preview.

But yes, would be an enhancement. At least Firefox has a built in spell checker. Yippee.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 6:10 PM

A plant? You’re on your own on that one, buddy.

John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM

OK – goofy and paranoid – I admit it.

anyways, it doesn’t matter the technicalities of it all, it’s still a public relations nightmare for the Democrats no matter what.

A group who want to preserve the right to burn the flag don’t look good screaming at a uniformed soldier speaking his mind.

Topsecretk9 on August 4, 2007 at 6:13 PM

I just emaile soltz about what a putz he is.
Threatening this soldier, in a private room, how…cowardly can you be?

ArmyAunt on August 4, 2007 at 6:14 PM

I just emaile soltz about what a putz he is.
Threatening this soldier, in a private room, how…cowardly can you be?

ArmyAunt on August 4, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Certainly it was bullying and buffoonish.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 6:17 PM

I already sent him two e-mails… one calling him out for wearing his uniform on his political site and the other asking him to publicly apologize…

hold your breath…

Kaptain Amerika on August 4, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Christoph, my name is Kristoff…

I certainly do not defend the action of wearing a uniform to anything but a parade…

I actually wore my father’s “Divisional MP” Marine Uniform for halloween when I was about 12… I was rather large at that age at 5’10″ tall… I handily taken down a notch several times that night… and I was just a child wearing his father’s uniform… so I knew from a young age how passionate people are about this. most people found it humorous that it was a military police uniform.

Kaptain Amerika on August 4, 2007 at 6:26 PM

I am obviously the retarded child logis was referring to above when s/he made the “homo” crack that I thought might render that post “toast”. Within a three minute span while correcting my own idiocy I failed to see logis’ post again and thought it had already been removed, thus the “that was quick!” stupidity. Goodbye, HotAir, this is my last post. I’m obviously not up to the task and will no longer bore the hell out of the many intelligent folks I learn an incredible amount from everyday. It has been my honor to be here among you for the past year. Mmm. Drano on the rocks awaits…

NightmareOnKStreet on August 4, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Nice to meet you, Kristoff. And yes, as a former military member (reservist), rules about respect regarding uniforms are deeply ingrained in me.

I remember when I joined the reserves, I lived in a small town and was waiting to be picked up for an exercise by fellow reservists from the same town. We were wearing combat fatigues. I was early and I think I ended up sitting down or something. It was in public, in the town, albeit not on a particularly busy street.

When the other soldiers arrived, a private, but an experienced and qualified on, upbraided me in no uncertain terms.

I took in the lesson, learned from it, and that was that. We both put it behind us and I’m sure I gave similar lessons to others in years to come.

That’s why in one of my comments above I refer to military tradition as being one of the two important principles here, not just adherence to regulations.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 6:31 PM

I’m not sure where you guys are getting all these uniform restrictions from. But they are not universal.

When my son was in BCT he was ordered to wear his uniform everywhere on his family weekend.

When he came back from Iraq they wore their uniforms shopping at the mall. It was common to see military in uniform in civilian places.

Orders do change, but to say there is some kind of universal order out there banning uniform wear is simply not true.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 6:40 PM

He was also a tank platoon leader in the Kosovo campaign, according to his bio.

What’s your point? I hope we won’t denigrate into a discussion about whether military logistics and/or training is honourable (and vital) work.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Yeah, we don’t do that crap here. If you want to attack our soldiers, go over to the DAILY KOS. You’ll fit right in there!!

DfDeportation on August 4, 2007 at 6:47 PM

This guy could pass for Harry Reid’s illegitimate son. He looks like a second generation talking cadaveur. Very rare form of “life.”

volsense on August 4, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Totally unnecessary remarks. You should be ashamed. What in Hades does his appearance have to do with who he is? Good grief, shallow, shallow, shallow. Having said that, I did not hear one political statement. He was standing up for the mission in Iraq, just as the uniformed solider was doing two seats in front of me on a plane I was on recently.

Glynn on August 4, 2007 at 6:49 PM

“wore their uniforms shopping at the mall”

I never served in Iraq or any other war zone, so I’m not coming at this with that kind of experience, just mundane every day North American-side posting as a reservist.

But wearing uniforms about town is definitely allowed by the regulations of my country and probably yours too. I live in a city with thousands of navy personnel and they were their uniforms all the time. I used to wear mine to and from my reserve unit and, if I had a reason to go, out to the bars after work or to a restaurant or whatever. All allowed.

This isn’t the same as a confrontational argument with someone at a political event, someone who is now accusing you of breaking army regulations from their vantage point as a former military officer (and currently a lame-ass nutbar bully).

It’s the kind of headache the military just doesn’t go looking for, which is one of the many reasons they have these regs.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 6:51 PM

YearlyKOS doesn’t advertise itself as a purely political function. It advertises itself as a bloggers convention. bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Excellent point.

Glynn on August 4, 2007 at 6:52 PM

It’s the kind of headache the military just doesn’t go looking for, which is one of the many reasons they have these regs.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 6:51 PM

then maybe they should. Maybe they should go looking. They fought and gave their life’s blood. They should be heard. And I say that speaking as the daughter of a 32 year veteran and the wife of a Vietnam vet.

Glynn on August 4, 2007 at 6:54 PM

then maybe they should. Maybe they should go looking. They fought and gave their life’s blood. They should be heard. And I say that speaking as the daughter of a 32 year veteran and the wife of a Vietnam vet.

Glynn on August 4, 2007 at 6:54 PM

While I respect your right to your opinion, I vociferously disagree with it.

The military should not go looking for arguments with politically motivated groups.

That’s called a quick route to civil war or a junta. And what of military members who share that group’s views? Are they to seek out groups they oppose and attack them? Defend the groups they believe in?

Nuts.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Not one of us, except perhaps for Army Lawyer from the other thread who hasn’t answered this question,

Perhaps because I haven’t been in this comment thread AT ALL to see the question?

…believe there should be a large punishment.

No, this does not warrant punishment (i.e. an art 15 or CM). It warrants a counseling statement or at most a local ltr of reprimand. I’d say the same thing had a soldier shown up and spoken out against the surge.

armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Well when Kerry gets in trouble for this and doing the same thing many many many times I’ll think about whether this soldier broke any rules or not.

Guardian on August 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM

YearlyKOS doesn’t advertise itself as a purely political function. It advertises itself as a bloggers convention. bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Excellent point.
Glynn on August 4, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Speaking of which, I wonder how KOS files its taxes? They’re claiming (or finally admitting) now that they’re a Political Action Committee. Do they have the paperwork in order to back that up?

At any rate, KOS has a perfect right to treat anyone wearing a United States military uniform as a pariah. And we have a perfect right to make fun of the moonbats for doing that.

But it’s a little hard to see why armchair attorneys on the right are trying to help the moonbats in their bizarre arguments to try and turn this into a court-martial.

logis on August 4, 2007 at 7:14 PM

No, this does not warrant punishment (i.e. an art 15 or CM). It warrants a counseling statement or at most a local ltr of reprimand. I’d say the same thing had a soldier shown up and spoken out against the surge.

major john made the same point from his vantage point of active duty officer in your armed forces.

Certainly, I think that’s reasonable and I defer to both of your judgment.

If any punishment was warranted, to me it would have been something in the neighborhood of a $200 fine and confined to barracks for 3-days or so.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Perhaps because I haven’t been in this comment thread AT ALL to see the question?

I wasn’t implying otherwise. I should have been more clear.

I meant to say you hadn’t addressed the question.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 7:16 PM

AFIK and can ascertain from the video shown, this soldier did not make a political statement at all, he merely asked, or attempted to ask, a question of the panel. He challenged their assertions, but not their political agenda nor their motivations. Challenging something that is incorrect is apolitical unless he had gone on to say something about specific politicians, policy, or parties.

Stolz should be knocked on his ass for his attempted intimidation of this man. If he had been wearing captain’s bars or an oak cluster, would he have threatened him so? His arrogance and clear disrespect of a soldier he does not know is telling of his ‘support of our troops.’ He thinks them fools and ignoramuses.

TinMan13 on August 4, 2007 at 7:29 PM

No, this does not warrant punishment (i.e. an art 15 or CM). It warrants a counseling statement or at most a local ltr of reprimand. I’d say the same thing had a soldier shown up and spoken out against the surge.

armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Why don’t we take a step back and look at the other side of the picture for a second? Since you’re looking stuff up, what about the actions of the a-hole in the suit and tie who said he was a “colonel”, and then belligerently tried to order the sergeant to “meet him in the parking lot” with some other KOS representatives where they would “take care of him.”

Such flagrantly abusive behavior of officers toward noncoms never turns out well – even in the most extreme circumstances, let alone in an off-duty civilian setting where separate units (and maybe even separate services) are involved. It’s just a little bit hard to believe that sort of thing is condoned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

logis on August 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM

RTO Trainer stated that the soldier was a reservist not on active duty. If that’s the case, no UCMJ. At all. I didn’t see that when I commented, I presumed he was AD.

Logis:

Are you talking about Soltz? I didn’t hear him call himself Colonel. If some other random dick said something like that, then he’s an ass. But not otherwise subject to UCMJ.

armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 7:49 PM

armylawyer,

I think both Soltz and the SGT are reservists not on active duty.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM

logis,
I am pretty sure KOS is not claiming to be a political action committee. I am also pretty sure Soltz doesn’t speak for them.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 7:54 PM

armylawyer,

I’ve heard UCMJ can apply to reservists in some cases after the United States vs. Phillips case last year. That case, he had accepted travel pay so the parallel is not strong.

This is going to sound stupid, but what the hell are your reservists doing wearing their military uniforms when and if they feel like it?

If they are active duty, they have a reason. If they are reservists not on assignment, they don’t except for a parade, wedding, or funeral or similar.

But — what is the law?

And if NOT subject to UCMJ… can reservists strip in public, wear partial uniforms, soil their uniforms in protest, etc?

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Sorry, I meant a few years ago.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 8:05 PM

His uniform looks weird to me. I don’t recognize the green tabs on his shoulder epithets, his ribbons look larger than the norm, I don’t know what the brass is above his name plate, nor the large cloth looking symbol directly above the ribbon rack.
. . .
John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 4:22 PM

ep·i·thet
1 . . . b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase

ep·au·let also ep·au·lette
something that ornaments or protects the shoulder: as a : an ornamental fringed shoulder pad formerly worn as part of a military uniform b : an ornamental strip or loop sewn across the shoulder of a dress or coat

The Monster on August 4, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Phillips was about a reservist who committed misconduct on the day before she entered active duty (in fact, it was an authorized day of travel) and she was on Wright-Patterson AFB at the time. And the court laid out the additional elements (not relevant or in play here) that allowed for her to be considered in service for that day.

Phillips isn’t really applicable here.

armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 9:09 PM

He’s also supposed to wear a cover when he’s outside. Did anyone see at hat?! I know I didn’t! OHNOES! He broke the LAW again!!!

Unless it wasn’t a political function, and he wasn’t making any sort of speech. Then it would just be the hat thing.

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Are you talking about Soltz? I didn’t hear him call himself Colonel. If some other random dick said something like that, then he’s an ass. But not otherwise subject to UCMJ.

armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 7:49 PM

I have no idea who the hell “Soltz” is. The dark-haired guy sitting next to Clark called himself a “captain,” I guess. Frankly I don’t trust these moonbats to give their real names, much less pay rapt attention as they parade out their “military credentials.”

All I know is that I have NEVER seen an officer speak to an NCO like that. If you say you’ve looked it up and there’s nothing in the Code about it, I’ll take your word. But trust me, if that jackass really ends up in active service, that sort of behavior will get corrected – and very, very quickly.

logis on August 4, 2007 at 9:20 PM

OMG! The KOS kids understand better than most here:

Daily Kos Playing Whack-a-Mole

It’s official. I have stepped through the looking glass.

TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 9:36 PM

By the way the SGT is wearing a 1st Airborne patch on his right sholder, an OIF ribbon and three overseas stripes. He has been to Iraq.

He said he was with the 733rd maintenance company I think.

The patch he is wearing is for the 88th Regional Readiness Command. It is a reserve unit. Their insignia is the blue cross he wears on his left shoulder

http://www.armyreserve.army.mil/USARC/RRC/0088RRC

I didn’t see him go outside the building, so he didn’t need to cover.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 9:36 PM

armylawyer,

Yeah, I know Phillips isn’t really applicable here, that’s why I say the parallel is not strong and ask the follow-up question:

And if NOT subject to UCMJ… can reservists strip in public, wear partial uniforms, soil their uniforms in protest, etc?

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 9:47 PM

I didn’t see him go outside the building, so he didn’t need to cover.

Yeah, but how did he get there with no hat? Huh? I demand an investigation!

(Just kidding, btw. Or maybe it’s channeling.)

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 9:48 PM

Solz is a real putz. Tough guy, putting men and women in uniform in a bad position by aiding the enemy with his support of defeat Iraq. It’s a bit over the top when he starts Brown Shirting someone serving and then they turn off the persons mic.

Talk about fascists.

Hening on August 4, 2007 at 9:48 PM

YearlyKos Convention – n. yier-lee-KOS k&n-’ven(t)-sh&n An annual convention gathering people from all walks of life who belong to the Netroots community, the US-based (but globally focused and inclusive) non-partisan grassroots political action community that uses the Internet and blogs as primary tools for: expressing viewpoints, building consensus, acting to change the status quo, mobilizing huge numbers of people and informing each other and the world about current events, grassroots actions, networks, meetings, policy and more. The YearlyKos Convention is a project of bloggerpower.org with the generous support of the Netroots Arts and Education Initiative (NAEI).

Well, based on that description, I’d think the yKos Convention should have had the SGT sitting on the stage as part of the panel, I mean being non-partisan and all about expressing viewpoints and building concensus, y’know!

BTW a non-partisan political action community is not the same thing as a political action committee which is regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

I’d bet that Wesley Clark understood the patches on the SGT’s uniform as did Soltz and both knew he was a reservist and not active duty.

The look on Clark’s face is priceless! He has that, “we’re in deep sh!t now” look.

Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Soltz is a real putz.

He’s getting torn apart by Daily Kos diarists… the Kos stalinists have already pulled one of the diarists offline.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 10:02 PM

I’d bet that Wesley Clark understood the patches on the SGT’s uniform as did Soltz and both knew he was a reservist and not active duty.

Maybe the General did and maybe since Soltz is also in the reserve he did as well. I recognized him as a reservist since I didn’t recognize the left shoulder patch. The AD army is so small you start to recognize all the AD patches right away.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 10:02 PM

TheBigOldDog on August 4, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Did you catch this?

Was Kos Questioner a Military Plant?

I was just informed that the guy in uniform this morning…..the one who posed a question to the panel about Progressives and the Military….. was a plant from the Right Wing….one Michelle Malkin to be specific, who has a blog called hot airbags or something self-referential like that.

More on this later. If this is true, it represents the most egregious, ugly, shameful and anti-American tactic I’ve ever witnessed in my own experience of studying and trying to improve US civil-military relations.

Curses! Foiled again! If it wasn’t for those meddling Kossacks…

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 10:07 PM

The Monster…

thanks, but already corrected here:

When did the Army add the epaulet schwag, btw?

heh, spelled epaulet wrong in the first post. Durrrr.

John from OPFOR on August 4, 2007 at 10:11 PM

The AD army is so small you start to recognize all the AD patches right away.
bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 10:02 PM

I’m not military but I would guess that the first thing they would have done was to scan the patches on his uniform to determine his credentials. Just as you did.

Curses! Foiled again! If it wasn’t for those meddling Kossacks…
Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 10:07 PM

LOL.. has Malkin had a mindmeld with Rove?! Those evil geniuses!

Texas Gal on August 4, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Looks like DailKOS lost one blogger over this:

It is official, I am formally through with DailyKOS.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 10:17 PM

This is the editorial that DailyKOS blogger wrote. It really is a must read:

Mr. Soltz, you own the American people an apology.

bnelson44 on August 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM

AP, get this man an honorary Hot Air account. We’ve got an opportunity to make a convert here, to save a soul. For conservatism.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 10:31 PM

ArmyLawyer, if you’re still around, what do you make of Soltz saying:

“For the sake of the Army, I want to thank everyone who’s come here…”

It sounds to me as though he’s portraying himself as speaking on behalf of the Army, which he is most certainly not. And that makes him a big fat hypocrite.

Pablo on August 4, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Christoph is Canadian, just curious where his intense interest in US Army regs and US political conventions comes from?

Topsecretk9 on August 4, 2007 at 11:47 PM

or I should say – intense opinions on them.

Topsecretk9 on August 4, 2007 at 11:48 PM

It sounds to me as though he’s portraying himself as speaking on behalf of the Army, which he is most certainly not. And that makes him a big fat hypocrite.

I think this is why even Wesley Clarke had the good sense to cringe at the attack by Soltz – Clark knows that he and Soltz are high profile enough exploiting their military service they don’t need the uniform it’s implicit

Topsecretk9 on August 4, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Ha ha, Army Lawyer – see what I dragged you into?!

Good to know that I have a JAG backing my position too…

major john on August 5, 2007 at 12:53 AM

AP, get this man an honorary Hot Air account. We’ve got an opportunity to make a convert here, to save a soul. For conservatism.

I’m already here… have been for a long time. I’m suprise you meatheads didn’t figure out who I was. hehe..

-Chuck in Detroit AKA The Populist

Chuck in Detroit on August 5, 2007 at 1:34 AM

typo’s out the wazoo… but I think ya’ll know what I meant.

Chuck in Detroit on August 5, 2007 at 1:34 AM

I can read typos and they weren’t that bad Chuck!

My congrats on your integrity.

Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 2:02 AM

Thanks. :) I’m still waiting for the purist right wingers to start screaming, “get the &*%$%* liberal outta here!”

;-P

-Chuck

Chuck in Detroit on August 5, 2007 at 2:06 AM

and, yes, I know, in a previous posting here, I said some things that would considered hate speech by some… but, hey, I know the truth of the history of the founding of this country. some don’t care to hear it. it tends to cause knee jerk reactions amongst arabs. ;-P

-Chuck

Chuck in Detroit on August 5, 2007 at 2:11 AM

It sounds to me as though he’s portraying himself as speaking on behalf of the Army, which he is most certainly not.

I’m sure it’s not illegal, but God damn he’s a bullying hypocritical buffoonish asshole.

Topsecretk9, the whole topic is fascinating to anyone who has a lifelong interest in history, military tradition, politics, etc. Your country IS the most powerful in the world, after all.

Imagine a person interested in such topics 2000 years ago. Their own country, but also Rome, would have intrigued them.

Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 2:23 AM

I went over to DailyKos to take a look and see if I could find any “blog” on Soltz versus the “Mystery Soldier”.

I could find nothing.

If they had thought that Soltz had acquitted himself well they would have been high-fiving him and themselves all over the place.

Their silence speaks for itself.

MB4 on August 5, 2007 at 2:46 AM

What he is doing is illegal. Plain and simple. Don’t use your military uniform in a political debate. Go in civilian cloths if you want to debate.

msipes on August 5, 2007 at 2:55 AM

Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person’s participation in partisan political activities. DOD defines “partisan political activity” as “activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.” That does not mean that a military person cannot participate in political discourse; far from it. They have to conduct their activities in civilian clothes and represent themselves as a citizen of the United States of America, not as Sgt Smith, 101st Airborne Division. They have to conduct those activities on their personal time and not during their duty day. The person you are talking about was breaking DoD and Army regulations. That being said it was not DailyKos’ place to tell the soldier to “Stand Down”. The soldier in question takes his order from those appointed over him and his chain of command. Kos was pissed and very uncomfortable because he was standing their refuting what they were saying and “BECAUSE” he was in uniform he put them at a disadvantage. All that being said the soldier was definitely violating several DoD and Army regulations and will be punished for it. The difference is DailyKos is not the judge and jury. The United States Army is and will exercise that authority under the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

msipes on August 5, 2007 at 2:56 AM

What he is doing is illegal. Plain and simple. Don’t use your military uniform in a political debate. Go in civilian cloths if you want to debate.

msipes on August 5, 2007 at 2:55 AM

Accurate, but largely irrelevant to the main point at hand, which is Soltz’s and DailyKos’s behavior.

MB4 on August 5, 2007 at 3:02 AM

Jon Soltz and Daily Kos should be ashamed.

SoulGlo on August 5, 2007 at 3:08 AM

Inaccurate according to armylawyer (at least according to UCMJ) because the Sergeant was a reservist, not on active duty.

I inadvertently overlooked armylawyer’s attempt to answer my follow-up question on whether this means a reservist can strip in public, wear partial uniforms, soil their uniforms in protest, etc.

However, his answer appears to be largely he doesn’t know and it might have to do something with Title 10 US Code.

So who knows if all this is illegal or not? armylawyer apparently doesn’t and I don’t either.

Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 3:13 AM

soil their uniforms civilian clothes in protest to keep from being drafted, etc.”

Christoph on August 5, 2007 at 3:13 AM

Now you have gone and done it and made me think of Ted Nuggent again!!!

MB4 on August 5, 2007 at 3:19 AM

They have no shame which seems to be a common thread throughout the left whether in the general public, MSM or elected office.

deepdiver on August 5, 2007 at 3:19 AM

Chuck, we’re the ones that die on the beaches so you can have desent… we not only don’t mind it… we encouage it…

why does everyone think that Hotair.com is all far right wing conservatives… I don’t believe in God, I’m for stem cell research… yet here I am… it seems to me that all I see here is common sense and some of the most current news…

anyway Chuck… I’ll be happy to read what you have to say… I might tear it apart, but I’ll never tear you apart for saying what you feel….

Kaptain Amerika on August 5, 2007 at 5:58 AM

I repeat what I said before – I think it can be argued that the event in question was not a political event in the sense the regulations talk about. The specific discussion he attended was entitled “Progessives and the Military,” and was not, at least by its billing, held to promote any particular candidate or political position. Similar topics are discussed in the same format in any number of events sponsored by universities’ political science departments.

It was essentially an academic event, except for the fact that all the participants (except one…) happen to share a particular point of view.

Suppose the soldier had attended an event billed as “Attorneys and the Military”, or “Doctors and the Military,” and during the course of the discussion, other participants made inaccurate statements about military matters – are you saying the uniformed soldier would be violating regulations by expressing his own view of the matter?

I can agree this is a gray area, because of the convention in the context of which the “Progressives and the Military” panel was held had a political angle to it. But I don’t see the difference between the specific seminar the soldier actually spoke out in and an academic discussion.

If the DoD wants to be hardline about this, there is really no reason for any servicemember to wear the uniform except while discharging their assigned duties on active service (i.e. so that when you are wearing the uniform you *are*, by definition, acting in an official capacity), so if they want to be scrupulous and avoid any gray areas, they could change the regulations.

LagunaDave on August 5, 2007 at 6:29 AM

Sorry to double post, but just another observation.

In 2002 or 2003, after 9/11 before Operation Iraqi Freedom, I had a vistor from Spain, and we were walking through a park near where I live. There were two sailors also out for a stroll, obviously off-duty, and she was very taken-aback to see military personnel walking around in uniform. She said it is absolutely forbidden in Spain, no doubt due to the legacy of the Franco dictatorship. But for my part, I explained that in America we are proud of our men and women in uniform, and feel admiration and respect when we see them, not fear.

And I don’t think a SGT asking a question at a panel discussion is a slippery slope to a Falagism, either…

LagunaDave on August 5, 2007 at 6:37 AM

So who knows if all this is illegal or not? armylawyer apparently doesn’t and I don’t either.

Time to dig out Title 32, USCA…and if he is National Guard, the State law that is applicable.

major john on August 5, 2007 at 9:49 AM

Chuck,
I also read your diary on Kos.
It was brilliant.
Can’t stay over there too long though, starts to hurt my eyes lol.
I look forward to any of your postings here and have added your blog to my favorites.
ArmyAunt

ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Being at that commie convention is an act of sedition in it’s self [sic].
No. It’s not.

Christoph on August 4, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Au contraire mon frier,
As a retired officer he is a life long representative of the US and the US army.

TheSitRep on August 5, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Someone told me, I was linked over at Little Green Footballs, I’ve tried bringing his log up. No dice. Did the presence of a Populist cause his server to crash? (sarcasm)

Chuck in Detroit on August 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

log = Blog

Chuck in Detroit on August 5, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Sometimes it takes quite a while for LGF to load on my computer too. I don’t think Charles’ server has a built in Populist Detector.. ;)

Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Try copy and paste this addy.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Slighty down the front page is a screen shot of your posting at DK and the links will follow to you blog.

Texas Gal on August 5, 2007 at 12:10 PM

It was amazing that there are 4 times more posters posting on this board than there was at the second day meeting of the DailyKos convention. Even that crowd as small as it was, represents more votes that Wesley Clark could get running for public office.

volsense on August 5, 2007 at 12:23 PM

No, this does not warrant punishment (i.e. an art 15 or CM). It warrants a counseling statement or at most a local ltr of reprimand. I’d say the same thing had a soldier shown up and spoken out against the surge.

armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Good points. In the old days we called it an attitude adjustment, now they call it mentoring ;) but you nailed it – it is not a career killer to be corrected as you described. Intent of military justice is to maintain “good order and discipline”.

Bradky on August 5, 2007 at 2:03 PM

so much for free speech:

[new] slightly OT (1+ / 0-)

YK is under attack at DIGG – go here and bury it

http://digg.com/

Here is the “explanation” diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/3940/86488?detail=f
What Really Happened at the YearlyKos Military Panel

Do I believe you or my lying eyes…….

ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Here is the “explanation” diary:

ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Thank you, that clears everything up. The Kosites are not afraid of disagreement. It’s just that anyone who disagrees is a “convention troll,” and of course no one has to listen to them. Captain Stolz was not unhinged at the prospect of having to address inconvenient facts. He was being “stern” with a “rule breaker” because he “values discipline.” He’d have behaved exactly the same if this soldier had agreed with him, no doubt.

It’s OK to behave like this with people who disagree if they are breaking the rules of the military, the organization that Kossacks love above all others. It certainly isn’t that Kossacks can’t stand to hear an alternative opinion! No, in that case they’d be banning people over at Daily Kos, and deleting inconvenient diaries.

Wouldn’t a little honesty help their cause? Something along the lines of: “Look,we on the left have a credibility problem on the war. The people who are fighting it mostly disagree with us, and we have to walk a fine line to maintain that we support the troops while trying to assert or achieve the failure of their mission. So it really does not help to have people disagreeing with us while wearing the uniform, in fact it drives us absolutely batty, and we’re not going to stand for it, at least not in our own convention. The only visible military types at Yearly Kos will be the ones who agree with us down the line. It’s our convention, that’s just how it is.”

I’d respect the honesty, anyway.

Splunge on August 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM

They are such a bunch of hypocrits!
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that if he had supported their position he would have been given a standing ovation.
I am curious as to why it’s ok for Soltz to have a pic of himself in uniform on his political website votevets.org

Anyone know why this is ok?

ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Well, that seemed like a productive exchange. No name calling or hysteria.

RTO Trainer on August 5, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Here is the “explanation” diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/3940/86488?detail=f
What Really Happened at the YearlyKos Military Panel
Do I believe you or my lying eyes…….
ArmyAunt on August 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Thanks for the link. But I didn’t need to read the blow-by-blow discription of how the video “lied.” I never got past this:

On Friday morning Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org moderated a YearlyKos panel called

The Military and Progressives: Are They That Different?

Is that meeting topic ironic or what?

Why try to itemize a hundred tiny hypocracies when you have this one giant elephant in the living room?

If regressives REALLY wanted to see the difference between themselves and the military, Aquino should be their freaking hero. They could not have hoped for a more clear illustration of the difference between them and us.

logis on August 6, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2