Although that premise itself must of course be viewed through the progressive filter of nuance.
Some dialogue is simply more equal than others.
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY QUESTIONING OF YOUR PATRIOTISM FOR QUESTIONING MY PATRIOTISM BY QUESTIONING!
(h/t Pablo)
Could you repeat the question please?
sure, but only if I’m allowed to cut and past.
This isn’t going to be on the test, is it?
Past eater!
Was anyone able to identify the uniform he was wearing?
Soldiers are forbidden from wearing the uniform to partisan political events and rallies….
However, 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….
Oh, they do love them some military troops…
don’t those Koskiddies? Just don’t ever question their patriotism, even if they misrepresent Army regulations. (h/t Jeff Goldstein) Technorati: Iraq, Yearly Kos, Daily Kos. US Military……
Oooohhhhhh!!!! Pretty!
I see the Kos kids are suppressing speech again.
They don’t like the soldier’s uniform because it lacked a brown shirt.
And they call us fascists.
TW: gets ordinance…..in uniform or out?
I thought they liked boots.
Hmm…sorta like: “I disagree with what you are saying but I’ll defend to my death…my right to not have it heard.”
Hmmmm.
Man those damn liberals are never happy.
If you’re not wearing a uniform then they’re calling you a “chickenhawk”.
If you are wearing a uniform then they scream at you and make sure you can’t get a word in edgewise.
What, the guy in uniform wasn’t too busy mocking all the slack-faced Kossacks and stringing their ears into necklaces? This just doesn’t have the ring of truthiness to me.
TW: smell guiltless…not with that olive drab on, you don’t
No. McCain/Feingold covers campaign financing, media access, and political advertising. It have anything at all to do with political rallies or meetings.
I’m certainly not a fan of Kos and his ilk and I happen to agree with the military guy, but as a veteran I have no problem with their Kos folks’ reaction here. This guy broke the rules even showing up in uniform let alone speaking out.
He’s got a right to air his political opinions, but he’s a total asshole for coopting the military’s good standing to lend authority to his opinion. That may not seem like a big deal in this case, but imagine if all the country’s Generals and Admirals started getting together and picking a candidate to endorse every four years. That’s a slippery slope I can’t imagine anybody wants us to get on.
Wearing the uniform might have been haraam, but that’s not why the Kossacks shouted him down. They objected to his message. I bet that there’s not a half-dozen of them who knew about that reg.
That said, so what? What did he expect at yKos?
TW: desire tyrant; my thoughts exactly
So saying you wear or have worn a uniform, or using your former rank as your title is an acceptable form of speech, yet the wearing of your uniform is not?
It may be against the rules (UCMJ) but is that something that is commonly enforced or adhered to at Kos or by the left in general? Why haven’t they condemned TNR for publishing the unauthorized statements of STB? Isn’t that also a violation? And why didn’t they tell this guy he couldn’t attend in uniform as soon as he attempted to enter the event? Why wait until he opened his mouth? What changed? They figured out he wasn’t about to toss his medals over the White House fence?
I’m not defending the guy’s actions, if the Kosstards want to make a complaint let them. But that doesn’t mean we can’t point up their intellectual dishonesty.
Ah, but he wasn’t endorsing a candidate. He was attending a panel entitled “The Military and Progressives: Are they really that different?”
You’d think they’d want some military on board for that, and he was simply presenting his own opinion, not representing the military. Wick, even if he were, Kos says is totally cool to do in uniform. As long as you agree with him, that is.
Tonight on the Factor…
Yes. I buy that they were simply interested in making sure he adhered to military rules.
Uh huh.
But Thomas raises a good point. By that same standard, they should be refusing even to read Scott Beauchamp’s accounts of what it’s like to be dehumanized by forward staging areas.
Is this one of those weird linguistic exercises like parsing the buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo thing? More importantly, will it count toward our final grade?
tw: rights curate
Pablo-Shame on you! You should know better then to use their own words against them. That’s Hate speech to the KosKiddies.
Has Sen. Lamont commented on this yet?
What about the power dialectic at play there? Wasn’t this lone dissenter speaking truth to power? Isn’t the left all about letting every voice be heard?
“We can find a semi-plausible excuse for shouting you down, therefore we will, because we can.”
Now, suppose that guy had stood up and said “Iraq is a fucking mess, and we ought to just pack up and get the hell out of there.”
Would he have gotten the same response, or a standing ovation for speaking trooth to power?
tw: fact committees
Sorry, not at that convention.
However, 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….
Actually, even without the McCain/Feingold restrictions (which I do believe poses a good question since Kos raises money and excepts money from political parties and candidates.
Still, the original question, is Yearly KOS a bloggers convention or a political rally?
“He’s got a right to air his political opinions, but he’s a total asshole for coopting the military’s good standing to lend authority to his opinion.”
The thing is, was he airing his political opinion, or simply his disagreement with the assessment of the Kossacks that everything in Iraq was and always will be doomed, doomed, doomed? From what I’ve read of the exchange so far, all this soldier did was state his opinion that the situation in Iraq, and the surge in particular, was not completely hopeless; I’m not seeing any indication that he was screaming “You fucking liberals are all traitors!” or something to that effect. I think that is why they got so flustered and started shouting him down–they didn’t know how to maturely react.
You do have a point in the sense that this troop should have erred on the side of caution and not gone in uniform, at the very least, but I don’t see how he could have presented an opposing viewpoint without revealing his military status or his time in the desert. I think ultimately it’s that opposing viewpoint that is the crux of the matter.
I’m sure most of them couldn’t care less about that. I’m just saying I think the guy is an asshat and he deserved a negative reaction. The main reason I call him that is, setting the rules aside, what he pulled is just the flipside of the chickenhawk argument. If it’s bullshit to imply that not serving erases a person’s credibility for supporting the war then it’s equally bullshit to imply that serving lends a person credibility. If he’s been there to see the effects of the surge then that certainly adds weight to his opinion, but his opinion shouldn’t carry any more weight than a civilian like Michael Yon’s. If he hasn’t been there then his opinions shouldn’t carry any more weight than mine, Jeff’s, or any random Kos Diarist’s.
Most people in the military don’t know how the surge is working than any other random person. If he does know then he should explain why and support his argument with facts like anyone else. He’s taking the esteem people have for the military in general and trying to apply it to himself specifically to try granting himself credibility he hasn’t earned the same way a moonbat yelling “chickenhawk” uses that esteem to try eroding someone else’s credibility. Asshat.
If that soldier guy had gone to Venezuela with his opposing viewpoint, he would have been deported, so Wes Clark actually chose a response kind of in the middle.
I have to go with SeanH on this. Even if by squinting, you could read the regs in such a way as to permit the wearing of the uniform at this “event”, members of the military have an obligation to avoid situations that could bring discredit upon the uniform. What if the event Gestapo (and you KNOW YKos has to have some) had decided to forcibly remove him and a scuffle ensued? Not good judgment on the young captain’s part.
Besides, to paraphrase an old Confederate soldier’s remark, you don’t wear your good clothes to go wrestle pigs.
TW: Carolina’s Foes
Well, we’re mostly over THAT war now.
Yeah, that’s why they turned the sound off while he was speaking, despite the fact that he was never on camera. Because of the uniform!
In that video at LGF, what Wes Clark says right before they put that “soldier” in his proper place (Yay!!) is that “We want our children to feel good about having served.” That’s a sentiment I think we can all get behind, and what we all know is that children should be seen and not heard. Silly killbot.
How do you know that if you don’t know what he had to say?
More succinctly, I’m just saying the rule’s there for a couple of damn good reasons. First, it seems cheap and dishonorable to me using people’s esteem for the military in general to support your own opinion in that way. Second, ignoring that rule is dangerous because it applies to everyone regardless of rank. If they really wanted to the handful of servicemen on the Joint Chiefs could concoct a story, call a press conference, and ruin the President and VP’s ability to lead so badly that Congress wouldn’t have any choice about impeaching them and giving us President Pelosi.
But it wasn’t a press conference. It was a conference conference, a seminar/panel thing, and he wasn’t a presenter, just an attendee.
It wasn’t a rally, or a protest or a demonstration. It’s a convention.
Sean, you do present some good points, and I think for the most part, the individual should be disciplined, if for no other reason than it’s just bad policy in general for people in the military to represent themselves at politically-oriented events.
One question this incident begs–If the problem was this individual’s military uniform, why wasn’t he corrected right off the bat before the panel even began and asked to leave the hall by Gen. Clark or the moderator of the panel?
Speaking of los deportados, Sean Penn is bound and determined not to join their ranks, and will resort to taking Chavez’s meaty chorizo down to Hugo’s pelotas to show his admiration of the tyrant’s lunacy.
Well, it does seem that according to Kaptain Kos, Jon Soltz, the idea we may be succeeding is a political opinion. At least that much is out in the open.
They don’t mention what’s
Dos minutos de odio (2008)
It is the history of Miranda, a humble woman who dreams of being an actress and initially supporting Hugo Chávez but getting disillusioned throughout the time.
that’s all screwed up – here is the link
Sr. Orwell, llama tu oficina!!
TW: exuberant con…why didn’t I get this on the Beauchamp thread?
As a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary (uniformed civilian volunteers – unpaid) I can wear the uniform* when under orders, at an event (such as a yearly dinner), at a conference, and in any place that will not bring disrepute on the Coast Guard (yes to a restaurant, no at a strip club). And I cannot wear it at a political rally as the Coast Guard, like the other four services, is apolitical. The question whether this is a political event is a good one because that will affect how that soldier is treated under the law. And it will affect how the appearances of political candidates is treated.
This will be an interesting case to follow based on how the military sees this and then the civilian courts in the inevitable lawsuits regarding the candidates’ filings, Kos’ filings, sponsors’ filings, and so on, with the Dept. of Treasury. Making a big deal out of this soldier’s appearance in uniform could upset a lot of applecarts.
Depending, a lot of heck may be about to cut loose.
* Certain parts of the uniform may not be worn but with the full uniform. I.E., boots and shoes are not identifiable parts of the uniform and a ball cap is not, but a garrison cap or saucer cap with the insignia is.
It appears Kaptain Kos is a real piece of work:
http://www.votevets.org/
I don’t understand this uniform fetish when I guess you can say whatever the hell you want if you wear something else.
This had something to do with the “Appeal for Redress”. Again with the dressing.
Yeah. You all didn’t know that John Solz (stolz I believe is the correct spelling) was a VOTEVET guy?
I’ve seen him speak. He personally believes that Iraq has distracted from the real war on terror in Afghanistan. The VOTEVET guys were also on Olbermann supporting the crazy “Tillman was murdered” theory.
However, I am still going to assert that this event was not a political event, but a bloggers convention. Technicalities, but important. Mikey notes why KOS would have made this important distinction.
Thus, KOS et al are completely incorrect and so are those who believe it is technically wrong.
Crazy? Yeah. You have a visceral reaction because you have a preconceived notion as to what the DailyKOS is. The convention is no such thing. Cutting a thin line? Oh yeah and I bet this guy knew the difference when he went, too.
Hey, Sean H. How do you feel about General Clark using “people’s esteem for the miltary” to support his views? Or are we to assume that he got to be on the panel solely because of his political background?
Even if it was classified as a “political event” the SGT can only be accused of bad judgment. He walked in to the bullpen wearing a proverbial red flag. (Red flag, get it?–that’s irony!)
The reg is and alwasy has been slopily worded and the interpretation has pretty consistently been, where politis are concerend that campaigning or running for office and wearing hte uniform are incompatible, otherwise teh usual 1st amendment speech right acrue to servicemen, in or out of uniform.
Of course, we didn’t hear the statements he made. If they included some formula like “vote for Smith”, “support HR 316”, “oppose resolution M” or somesuch then he might have a legal problem.
Then again, if he’s a Guardsman and not on orders, he’s not subject to teh UCMJ or his states’ Military Code and could expect little more than a verbal lashing from his 1SG or CDR.
As it is, Top or the Old Man are more likely to be perturbed with him for stirring up a hornet’s mess they’ll have to be invovled with.
TW: removed reason hmmmmmm
I do believe that one of the regs is that you are not supposed to wear a uniform at an “extremist” event.
There you go.
tw: binocular general
Eerie, this this is.
General Clark is retired, and as such can say what he wants, though I bet he could not attend a full political rally in his dress blues or class A’s.
True, Mikey, but everybody knows he’s a retired general, from whence he draws moral authority. Sean says that our captain’s wearing of the uniform is “cheap and dishonarable” because it lends moral support to his positions. What’s the difference?
Mikey, retiree’s are still subject to the UCMJ.
But this isn’t a partisan political event. And the cause at issue is not one that “is specifically associated with national or State political parties.”
I saw the video via LGF. The sound was off; I couldn’t hear what the questioner was saying. I just saw the other guy madly clicking his pen in that impatient and intolerant manner. And then huffing off the stage. Not good form.
Really cynn? Cause that’s not what I saw. You have to let the thing run all the way through you can’t skip ahead.
RTO, have you seen a version where you can hear the Sergeant? It seems to me like they cut the sound out on him, and I have no idea what he actually said.
No. McCain/Feingold covers campaign financing, media access, and political advertising.
Correctamundo mighty Carnak:
Now if this is interpreted as a political event that he cannot wear his uniform to, then by definition Yearlykos is political advertising. The media access it provides to the candidates can be considered a ‘donation in kind’ as political financing and they can be shut down 60 days prior to an election and forced into all kinds of further disclosure under McCain/Feingold.
So you are entirely incorrect: It is either a non-political gathering of bloggers anyone can wear a uniform to or it is a political event sponsored by an organization that must adhere to McCain/Feingold.
You cannot have it both ways.
Pablo,
Sorry about that. Drinking Manhattans this evening.
rtoDOTtrainerATgmailDOTcom
RTO: You were at the Kos Konvention? Spill it. What DID you see?
is this supposed to be so complicated?
HOW DRY I AM! HOW DRY *hic*
Nobooooody knoooows the trouble Aye Seeeeeeeeeen!
I’m numb. Numb I tell you, to the humanity.
I’m about to finish the Makers Mark. One more dead Soldier.
buh-buh BUH.
buh-buh BUH.
It’s the vermouth, RTO. Those damned eyetalians!
Cynn,
I WAS that SGT at Yearly KOS. At least in the spirit, non-flesh, solidarity, rolling with my hommey, truthy sort of way.
Cause it COULD have happend that way!
Here’s the applicable reg:
The applicable reference for Army personnel is para 1-10, AR 670-1:
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.
(3) When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
(4) When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
(5) When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
So, which one was the Yearlykos gathering of bloggers?
Choose wisely, grasshoppah
I’d have to pick #4.
Ooooh…. How does attending a bloggers convention ‘bring discredit upon the Army’?
(BTW–that ‘discredit upon the Army’ is code for: ‘sexual or racist stuff.’….)
So is the Yearlykos the same as a KKK convention or an S & M convention?
If your point were followed, I could not stop by Jeff G’s house after weekend drill and talk you you over a beer.
(Which I would really like to do.)
TW: Galway’s Speech. you could not wear a uniform there….
You cannot wear it here or there, you cannot wear it with a bear.
You cannot wear it’s what I said. You cannot wear it asleep in bed….
Take it Dan!
It’s all cool, because apparently RTO radio expert is just another NOT a hard-drinking 40+ waning drunken female who tipples because she hates her nipples.
You cannot wear it with a fox,
you cannot wear it in a box.
I will not wear Green Sox and ACUs when I question youse.
who doesn’t like nipples?
Two words: Yearly Kos.
Coulda been somewhere respectable like a dogfight or a whorehouse.
a hard-drinking 40+ waning drunken female who tipples because she hates her nipples.
If she is a MILF, I’d love her nipples…. Repeatedly….
Cynn’s projecting. Probably with Peach Schnapps.
And I’m not 40 for another couple of years, yet, nor female. And I love all nipples. Mine included.
Well, lucky you, Peach Schnappy (our new nickname)!
Er…I’d probably avoid wearing my uniform to such an event. But I generally err on the side of caution when it comes to AR 670-1. I think the remark about wearing red going into the bull pen is spot on, too.
I don’t know if the guy should be called an asshat or such, but he was using the uniform to make a point that he simply could have made orally.
As for “Most people in the military don’t know how the surge is working than any other random person.” I do think that is incorrect. The US military tries to push info down as far as possible, and even just a cursory glance at AKO Home Page (Army Knowledge Online) will link you to a vast amount of information, links, sources, etc.
Sorry I’m late.
boatbuilder: I think the difference is that Gen. Clark is retired and your captain isn’t. True, Clark’s status as a retired officer gives him some moral authority, but he does have the right to speak and campaign out of uniform.
RTO Trainer: I guessed that retirees were covered by the UCMJ, which is why I said I thought Gen. Clark could not wear his uniform at a political rally even though retired.
I have no use for the DailyKos, but did anyone else hear the moderator say that he didn’t want the soldier to say anything political, for or against what they had said there, while in uniform? The “do you want me to come down there” seemed to be to explain things, perhaps even hear him out, but there was no threat until after the guy finished speaking despite the warnings.
Sorry, there was no “shouting down” here, and the way it was handled seemed reasonable.
Well, it turns out that he wasn’t saying anything political. He just called Stoltz out and asked him to prove his claim, and offered his own numbers. Just facts about Iraq, and not a bit of politics. Which is why the Kossacks don’t want you to hear what he had to say. And without further ado, here is the video Kos doesn’t want you to hear: the Sergeant, in full, thanks to Andrew Marcus of Pajamas Media.
The aftermath is better yet. Stoltz is a punk, a brownshirt and his intimidation didn’t work.
…as a veteran I have no problem with their Kos folks’ reaction here. This guy broke the rules even showing up in uniform let alone speaking out.
The regs are clear. You can’t show up in your uniform. Didn’t read anything about not showing up in a Bradley, though…
TW his… confiscate, as in “his critics tried to confiscate his truth…”
By wearing his uniform to YearlyKos, do you really think this guy was trying to manipulate the esteem people have for the uniform? How many people there do you think have esteem for the uniform of the United States Armed Forces? No, this was more defiant; think saying the Our Father in a group of Wiccans. Yeah, like that.
TW: warship guarantee… well, sure, I can guarantee you anything you want!
All the guy did was challenge Kaptain Kos numbers on the results of the surge. I want someone to ask Soltz how it is he considers our progress in Iraq to be a political issue. Let the arrogant fucking shit weasel try to explain his way out to that.
So when Naval Res. Lt. Jg. John F. Kerry, wore his medals to the Foreign Relations Committee meeting; that was kosher; really?
I still think these Kos guys overreacted. I have yet to hear what the soldier actually said. I would like to think that they would have given him a fair shot at debate. Looks like the same old crap, from both sides.
Cynn, the link in Pablo’s comment at #76 has video from a different perspective, you can see what the Sgt. said.
OK, I finally saw some of what this gentleman said. I don’t know the military restrictions, but he should not have been shut down. He said he was trying establish a common dialogue. Thanks for the link, Pablo.
d’oh. Hate to say it, but I think we have a shiner here.
Did you hear Soltz saying “For the sake of the Army, I want to thank everyone who’s come here…”
Douchebag hypocrite, ain’t he? He is NOT supposed to be representing himself as speaking on behalf of the Army.
Sez who? You accept one guy, you must accept the other.
Accept what, cynn? You have one guy asking a question and offerring facts, while in uniform. Than you have Mr. Rules and Regs, in the middle of trying to dress the other guy down, claiming that’s he’s speaking on behalf of the Army. He’s ragging on the other guy for a possible inference of that which he pipes right up and proclaims.
What I think you have, Pablo, is a showdown. Like High Noon, you have two factions butting meaty breasts against each other, and still, nothing gets done.
I think what you have is a hypocrite bully. The Sergeant was not engaging in politics, and the event is not political. He didn’t do anything wrong, and he wasn’t trying to beat anyone up. But then you have the guy who’s trying to beat him up for being in uniform representing himself as speaking officially, on behalf of the Army, which he has no business doing.
As for what the sergeant did, while i wouldn’t have gone in uniform, he did nothing wrong. See the comment in this thread by armylawyer on August 4, 2007 at 7:49 PM
In other words, even if the rule in question applied to this situation (which I don’t think it does), it doesn’t apply to him. He’s not subject to the UCMJ.
Like High Noon, you have two factions butting meaty breasts against each other, and still, nothing gets done.
That’s nothing like High Noon.
giunsPen, I think she was getting it confused with High Nooner.
“RTO Trainer stated that the soldier was a reservist not on active duty. If that’s the case, no UCMJ.
– Unless things have gotten really lossy goosy since my own days in the service, Everyone takes an oath to your momma, your country/Constitution, and the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. Period. Duty status does not afford you relief from injecting personal issues, or beliefs, into a public forum, and thereby possibly misrepresenting the Militarys position on things.
– However, since almost everything in life is in one way or another intertwined with temporal political issues, there are instances when the Military eases up with a wink and a nod, thus making the various service media outlets, i.e Stars and Stripes, Naval information network, Tv brodcasting programing on military communities, ect. possible. They do police these broadcasts, but its not possible to filter out all forms of political commentary, if you buy the Ill-Liberals thesis that actual Facts about Iraq gives them a bad case of the hives.
– Personally, I’d give the guy a purple heart for even venturing into that den of Benedict Arnolds and draft dodgers.
– Over to you RTO……RTO?….Hey….RTO….Hmmmm…..guess he finally passed out. Maggie cover him with a blanket…..
More succinctly, I’m just saying the rule’s there for a couple of damn good reasons. First, it seems cheap and dishonorable to me using people’s esteem for the military in general to support your own opinion in that way.
Except he wasn’t stating any “opinions.”
Your comments are so over the top absurd, it is comical.
The man was stating what his commanders have already said publicly. I bolded that fact for you so you can read and repeat until you grasp.
He’s got a right to air his political opinions, but he’s a total asshole for coopting the military’s good standing to lend authority to his opinion.
So then these Generals can’t tesitify in front of Congress then, right?
Your definition of “politcal” and “opinions” needs some work.
Learn to read.
Well, I had to read it seventeen times with my lips moving, but you’ve sure changed my mind. I guess I hadn’t realized stability and political unity in Iraq was inevitable now. Now that I know it’s an uncontestable fact the surge is working and not an opinion it’s sure a load off my mind.
My lack of reading comprehension must be the reason I keep thinking I see stories fretting about why the military successes aren’t translating into political successes. Now I realize I just misunderstood all those news stories about completely deadlocked parliament and all the Sunnis walking off the PM’s cabinet.
I tend to think there’s a difference between a General briefing Congress and this guy, what with the first being a on-duty serviceman fulfilling his military duties and the other being an off-duty yahoo giving his two cents at a political convention.
Then again, I’m the dummy that didn’t know the surge was indisputably double-plus guaranteed to succeed so maybe I’m just reading too much nuance into your remarkably clever rejoinder.
Jackoff.
Mikey–I don’t know whether the soldier was violating any regs, or whether Gen. Clark is. As far as I’m concerned, both should have the right to say whatever they want to say–I believe that the point of the regs is to prevent the opinions and actions of individuals from being construed as those of the military. I don’t think that there is any real concern about that in this case.
I was responding to Sean H’s assertion that it was “cheap and dishonorable” to take advantage of people’s esteem for the military to support their own political views. If so, Clark, Kerry, John McCain, and an awful lot of others are guilty. Ace made the same point. Sean H hasn’t responded to this, except by changing the subject to whether the guy violated the regs. Which, of course, is what the Kossacks were doing, which generated this post.