Rick Moran interviews soldier who spoke up at Yearly Kos
posted at 3:25 pm on August 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
His name is David Aguina and he’s an Army reservist. His UCMJ claims against Soltz seem thin to me — Article 88 prohibits “contemptuous words” directed at the president, not criticism, and Article 91 seems to apply only to lower-ranking soldiers and only when on duty — but it’s hard not to be moved by his story about his experience with Iraqis.
Meanwhile, via LGF, one of the yKos panelists parries right-wing criticism of the incident with some clever stammering about chickenhawks. Unmentioned in his post: Glenn Greenwald, Atrios, Max Blumenthal, Ken Layne, and the countless millions of other military-age liberals who all presumably support the war in Afghanistan and yet inexplicably haven’t beaten a path down to the local recruiting station after 9/11. Charles Johnson notes in an update an irony I noted myself in my post about this on Friday: Kos himself recently complained about the regs prohibiting vets from wearing their uniforms to political events. Here’s a further irony for you: the dKos diarist who wrote this is himself a member of VoteVets, a group which, like Vets for Freedom, explicitly seeks to derive political advantage from the fact that they’ve worn the uniform. And so I repeat my question from yesterday. Did anyone there really think Aguina was “representing the military,” especially given the fact that he was outnumbered in the room by vets who oppose the war?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
The blurring of this line has often lead to death and tyranny on a large scale
No wonder your grasp of basic logic is so poor.
You’re either a hair on fire hysteric or phoney as a 3 dollar bill. (Or both)
boris on August 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM
The blurring between politics and tyranny hasn’t lead to death and tyranny?
You’re a moron, boris. Still not going to explain the discrepancy between your 9:55 PM and 10:01 PM comments — a mere 6-minutes apart? [both referring of course to my 8:55 PM and 9:38 PM comments pointing out your lack of logic and intellectual honesty]
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Mistyped… it should read, “The blurring between politics and the military hasn’t lead to death and tyranny?”
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Good article:
Roger L. Simon: Jon Soltz and the Politics of Rage
bnelson44 on August 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
It was a good article.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Agreed.
Doesn’t change the fact that soltz is doing the very same thing, just out of uniform, and he is being a hypocrit about it.
Using military terminology and issuing orders from the dias, in my mind, put him in the same boat as the Sgt.
He was using his military rank to issue orders to a soldier of lesser rank.
This too should be addressed.
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 11:18 AM
You’re a moron, boris
Good move, prove me wrong by throwing a hissy fit.
Here’s you …
The attribution of what I think about something I have not discussed is both dishonest on your part and the logical fallacy known as straw dummy. I just ignored it but you feel the need to embarrass yourself further for some unknown and probably deep psychological reason.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Probably one of the reasons our Founding Fathers stuck that 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.
Texas Gal on August 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Not guns, Texas Gal, military.
Repeat after me. Guns are good (you’re a Texan; we can agree). Mixing uniformed soldiers into politics become militarism or fascism and it is bad.
I don’t expect you to understand that second point, but if you repeat it often enough, your subconscious will absorb it.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Did you actually say that? That’s kinda funny.
That aside, Jon Stolz is pretty much safe because he was out of uniform and as OPFOR points out, he was right.
Yet he showed TERRIBLE human relation skills and a psychological pathology in the out of control self-important way he delivered it.
Sgt. Aguina showed good human relations skills, he just shouldn’t have been wearing his uniform while there.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 11:41 AM
LOL.. Christoph. You’re quite a funny fellow. Your need to be condescending to elevate your superiority is very amusing. I think you and soltz have similar traits and that might be why you are so focused on Sgt. Aguina and his uniform.
You’ve got your head so far up your narcissism you can’t even grasp my point!
BTW, down here we call them weapons, not guns.
Texas Gal on August 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM
bnelson44 on August 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Yes indeed, but not one that Jon Soltz would care to have anyone read.
doriangrey on August 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Christoph
You thought that was funny?
How is using his MILITARY RANK at a POLITICAL event allowed?
I will quit responding to you as you continually bring up the same stuff and appear to be trying to hijack this thread.
Bottom line, soltz is a putz and a disgrace to the uniform.
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I couldn’t care a less if you stop responding to me and by all means take this opportunity.
But for what it’s worth, if he went to a military event determined to use his military rank, this would be bad.
But if he as a Captain was at a military event and he saw a Sergeant in uniform doing something inappropriate and, indeed, dangerous (in principle) in a democracy, he’s entirely within his rights to point this out to the Sgt. and tell him to stand down. Particularly since it was the Sgt., not the Cpt., who chose to show up in uniform.
If your point was true, and it manifestly isn’t, it’s really not well thought at all, an officer who wasn’t wearing his uniform, but noticed an enlisted man wearing a uniform breaking regulations, should just ignore it because it’s not a military event of some kind.
Balderdash.
Who pray tell should take control of the wayward military member if not a superior officer?
You think the local police are gonna show up and say, “Oh, right, Sgt. Aguina, is it, you’re violating regulation X of subsection Y of your branch’s regulations?”
Nope. That would be the officers’ responsibility.
It IS true that Stolz handled this badly. Everyone agrees on that.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
indeed, dangerous (in principle) in a democracy
BS
boris on August 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
boris, it’s your position that mixing uniformed military members and politics isn’t dangerous, as you’ve adamantly defended:
You’re entitled to that opinion. It’s hardly mainstream. And it goes against democratic tradition.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM
This incident was not “dangerous”. Using that term for this situation is beyond silly.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Did you ignore the words “in principle” which you yourself quoted?
Obviously — yes.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
boris
He is just beating this to death.
I am just going to ignore him.
Even when I agree with him, he won’t stop pointing out something ELSE I am wrong about.
Methinks he is a Koskid.
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Or when I agree he points out how I am agreeing wrong.
ArmyAunt on August 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Apparently, The Brand Spanking New Theory Of Military Decorum says that as long as you’re not in uniform, then absolutely anything goes. Abuse of rank; public harassment and threats toward noncommissioned officers; slandering the commander-in-chief; encouraging the enemy; trying to demoralize our troops in the field…. Doing all of that and worse explicitly “on behalf of my Army” is absolutely 100% OK.
But if you so much as LOOK at a microphone while you’re wearing a uniform – regardless of what you may be intending to say – you’re a threat to the military cohesion. And that sort of behavior must be immediately squelched.
Get with the program; that’s been the law for almost a week now. Where have you been?
logis on August 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I understand the intensity of your feelings, logis. I hope you’re not stating this is me? Because it provably isn’t, which as an honest person, I believe you would readily admit:
… since I criticized Stolz repeatedly and strongly on this and other threads.
(Which, with a ;-), ArmyAunt, is very strange behavior for a Koskid.)
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM
More your dishonesty and/or stupidity …
Don’t see “in principle” in that post which I responded to thus:
boris on August 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
You’re disingenuous, boris. Of course, it isn’t in that comment:
That’s because it’s quoted in the comment you wrote 13-minutes earlier:
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Those are seperate responses to seperate posts of yours.
The “incident” response was to your post …
it’s your position that mixing uniformed military members and politics isn’t dangerous, as you’ve adamantly defended:
7:38 PM
8:32 PM
8:42 PM
9:34 PM
10:33 AM
The simple fact of the matter is that most of those (eg 7:38PM) YOU referenced were about the INCIDENT.
Therefore you are either stupid or dishonest.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM
This comment thread is full of well-intentioned people who, unfortunately, are uninformed as to the subject matter. (Christoph, John of OP-For and RTO are not among that number.)
Unfortunately, some of them have let their pride of opinion overrule their ability to comprehend what’s being said.
Stop flinging insults and READ.
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM
So do you have an opinion or are you just keeping score?
boris on August 6, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Christoph:
BS
It is my position that this incident was not “dangerous”. Using that term for this situation even in principle is beyond silly.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Hey! ;-)
armylawyer on August 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Oh yeah, you too. (Lawyers!) ;-)
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 7:23 PM
If you’re talking to me, the former.
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 7:25 PM
You’re no vet…go ahead, have a cow!
baldilocks on August 6, 2007 at 7:26 PM
You’re no vet
Since you include comment from 2 posters both who claim to be vets (US and Canada), I request clarification.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Hmmmm…
You can burn the American Flag and put Jesus in a bottle of piss…
But you can’t talk politics while wearing your uniform at the Koz Kidz Konvention.
Yes. That makes total. Perfect. Sense.
thareb on August 6, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Thareb,
Pakistan is run by a general who took over politically in a coup. So was militant Japan before WW2.
Notice I’m being roundly attacked by ignorant but well meaning people here, but if you go to this thread at the milblog OPFOR, frequented by experienced and veteran military men of all ages, they all agree with my core point and any disagreement is about details around the edges while we strive to get the facts right.
OBVIOUSLY I and everyone else understands there is daylight between a “secret society founded by army officers” and “a Sergeant” One has the power to move divisions and one doesn’t.
So it would be crazy to say this case is as dangerous as the one in Japan.
But WHERE THE DANGER COMES is in the breaking down of this military tradition. That’s why, if you go to OPFOR, you’ll see these military officers, veterans, and experienced commentators reluctantly, like myself, believe some form of discipline is needed for Aguina.
We also believe Stoltz was a jerk, but unfortunately technically right. Still, OPFOR commentator, DaveO, points out:
I agree with every word of that.
OPFOR is run and founded by serving combat arms officers. They were taught from early in their United States military career not to mix politics and the military for the most serious reasons.
It is this tradition WHICH IS A CORNERSTONE OF WESTERN MILITARY THOUGHT that has kept the U.S., the most powerful nation in history, free from military dictatorship whereas other nations have been racked by it.
It’s the tradition and principal of separating military and civilian life that is at stake.
I was also taught these principals by my country’s military from a very young age, which is why I feel passionately about it. They were drilled home in us.
If there was a serious mixture of politics and the military, the officers who run OPFOR would realize it is their duty to report this to their chain of command and, if serious, work to thwart it. The officers who run this blog understand it can never become acceptable to mix the two.
So the symbolism of having a uniformed military member appearing at political events matters.
Do you get it now?
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 8:37 PM
You’ve typed an awful lot now, and I fully realize that by the time you have to ask this, it’s always a stupid question… But what is your point?
If you’re trying to say that everyone in that room who loudly announced (and/or wore accoutrement to the effect) that he was a member of the US armed forces and then said something about politics should be punished in exactly equal measure… congratulations: you’re not a moron.
But if you’re still prattling on about that whole “uniforms are magic” crap then, hey, why don’t you consider giving it a rest? If you were going to convince anyone, you would have done so about 5,000 words ago.
logis on August 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM
You don’t do politics in uniform out of respect for the uniform. He was respectful enough toward yKos, but he, through ignorance, showed a lack of respect to the Army.
Christoph on August 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Do you get it now?
There’s no there there to get.
If democracy was in imminent danger of collapse because a reservist in uniform speaks his mind at an “educational” seminar, pretty sure I would be aware of that particular danger.
Instead the danger I’m aware of is moonbats claiming there is no danger from Islamofascism, no such thing as terrorism and Bush lied all those poor gullible dimorats into voting for war after war after war and now for FISA changes that will destroy the constitution.
One boneheaded Canadian “getting” the vapors over a truthful nerdy reservist in uniform doesn’t even register on the nanoevent meter.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 9:48 PM
BTW the US constitution requires elected civilian control of the military. That’s politicians ruling the folks in uniform. Hardly the “wall of seperation” Cristoph the Canadian is trying to spin.
boris on August 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Good grief.
SGT Aguina is not Hitler, Napoleon nor Cromwell.
The “Man on Horseback” is not going to take over the USA because the SGT wore his uniform where he shouldn’t have.
Unless this is a pattern with the SGT and he’s been counseled on it before, he will not be punished. That would break the rules.
There will be an administrative action and none of us will ever know about it unless the SGT tells us because that’s also in the rules.
CPT Soltz will continue, barring therapy, to have anger issues.
And Democracy will continute its lurching way in this Republic.
RTO Trainer on August 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM
…or, I suppose you could just keep going right on forever, couldn’t you?
logis on August 6, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2