John Lilyea of "This Ain't Hell" just left a comment on yesterday's post about political speech in uniform. He brings up a couple of points that I'd like to address in some detail. First, here's Lilyea's comment in full:
Funny, you picked the one quote I made in jest and nailed it to your cross.
Now, answer me this - is the YearlyKos a political event or is it a blogger convention (as it was billed)?
Did the sergeant make a political statement, or was he just asking for a little clarification?
Did he bring discredit to the uniform, or did Solz just discredit himself as a non-partisan actor?
If you'd have bothered to read the DoD directive in it's entirety (sans blinders) you'd have arrived at the same conclusion a reasonable person like myself would conclude. the young buck sergeant is in no trouble nor should he be in trouble.
And his commander is pleased that his troops have the gumption many on the political Left can't seem to summon.
Let me take these things one at a time:
1: In my personal opinion (I should mention that I don't have a diary on DKos, and haven't gone to YKos, so my opinion could be more informed), YearlyKos is both a blogger convention and a political event.
2: The sergeant did more than ask for clarification, but I'm not entirely sure that he crossed over the line into outright political speech during the question and answer period. (I think he did cross the line during the Pajamas Media interview.) I think that it's entirely possible that Soltz, by stopping the response to the question, kept it from crossing the line at that time.
3: Yes, I think he did bring discredit to the uniform. He showed up at the event in uniform when there was absolutely no reason for him to be in uniform - particularly since he's not currently on active duty. He did so, I think, for the sole and express purpose of making a political statement. That's wrong. It's not proper, and it's not legal.
4: Soltz made it clear before the sergeant began to speak that he would be upset at any political speech while in uniform, whether for or against the war.
Let me make something very clear here. Had the sergeant showed up in a suit, or in jeans and a t-shirt, or in fatigues stripped of insignia and said the same things, I'd be applauding him right now. It takes an incredible amount of guts to stand up in a forum where you know most people will disagree with you and speak your mind firmly and with conviction, as he did. I may disagree with him, but if he wants to make his opinions known, he should absolutely do so - and it's every bit as important for those of us on the left to understand that there are those in the military who disagree with us as it is for those of you on the right to understand exactly the same thing. This is a complex issue, and there are people in uniform on both sides of the debate, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But as General Clark said, and as Jon Soltz said, there is a hard and firm line. You don't participate in political debates in uniform. You do it in civilian clothes, speaking as an individual citizen. The sergeant ignored repeated warnings to do just that, and as a result he should be in some trouble right now, regardless of whether or not his commander agrees or disagrees with his political views.
- Log in to post comments
So why didn't someone say something to the sergeant in the 44 minutes (by the video counter) preceding the confrontation? If it was a problem after the confrontation, it should have been a problem beforehand. In fact neither Solz no Clarke said anything to soldier during the entire presentation - until the sergeant asked a question.
You're simply wrong about bringing discredit on the uniform. Maybe in your view, but in reality, he did not.
While we're at it, I don't suppose that Jon Solz mentioning his veteran status at every opportunity equates to what this sergeant did, does it? Or this picture of Solz at his overtly political website in uniform (without a cover, I might add - improper wear according to AR 670-1);
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=199&I…
The dividing line as far as the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) is concerned is taking part in partisan (not just political) activity while in uniform. The DailyKos website is explicitly partisan: it's about improving the quality of democrats and getting more of them elected. The DailyKos convention isn't actually run by the owner of the website so I don't know if it is strictly partisan, but it's still essentially partisan.
I haven't watched the video. If the soldier was politicking for the democrats while in uniform or in the capacity of his office he will get in trouble about it officially - that's something only Republicans get away with.
Relevant section of the UCMJ. I hadn't noticed b.(4). So no one on active duty can make campaign contributions to members of congress or to the president? Is that enforced?
1. General
a. A member on AD may:
(1) Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.
(2) Make monetary contributions to a political organization-
(3) Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as a spectator when not in uniform.
b. A member on AD shall not:
(1) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.
(2) Be a candidate for, or hold, civil office except as authorized in subsections D.2. and D.3., below.
(3) Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions.
(4) Make campaign contributions to another r of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.
Even after the interview on Pajamas Media, I still don't know how that sergeant would vote, do you? And, although you and I both know that Kos is a blatantly partisan organization of Democrat apologists, the conference was supposed to be for bloggers...it wasn't a political rally or a political gathering. You're stretching now to paint the Right, generally, and me specifically, as "flip-floppers".
The truth is; you, Kos and Solz are the flip-floppers it just depends on the message the uniform wearer brings to the event. My main problem with Kokesh was what he said about the facts of his wearing of a uniform, not what he did in uniform.
And changing the course of the discussion in midstream won't divert me from my main point. Who gave contributions to who? How is that at all relevant to this discussion?
According to a.3) if he was on active duty, the sergeant was wrong to even be there in unifom. Also it clearly states that whether the funcion was partisan or not doesn't matter.
Anyone who doesn't know YearlyKos is a political event is plain stupid or acting ignorant intentionally. Give me a frakking break.
Ya'all can scat and skip around the central issue if you'd like, but the fact remains that it wasn't a political event, it was a blogger convention.
He didn't say anything political, and no one thought to tell him that he couldn't be there in uniform for the 44 minutes he sat quietly. As long as everyone thought he was aligned with the anti-war meme of the crowd, they had no problem with him being there.
C'mon.
The reason I do not have a problem with Kokesh's stunt on the Mall is that I don't think his attire could (or should) reasonably be considered to be a uniform. It was Marine fatigues, but all identifiers including his name and the branch of service had been removed. Had a civilian been dressed like that and put on a performance just like Kokesh did, they would not have gotten in trouble because the lack of insignia would be enough to keep them out of trouble for impersonating someone in the service. In Kokesh's case, even the VFW thinks that calling what he did political speech in uniform is unreasonable. And we all know what a bastion of the anti-war left VFW is.
The sergeant in question was in full Class-A uniform at the event. He should not have been wearing his uniform to begin with, given that he's not on active duty. He should not have been wearing the uniform at the conference even if he was on active duty because of the political nature (yes, Virginia, YearlyKos is political) of the event. Had a civilian shown up at the event in that uniform, they would be subject to arrest for impersonating a soldier.
Oh, and by the way, it appears that this guy had already been counseled on the impropriety of wearing a uniform to the event by General Clark the day before. Also, listen to the videos. Soltz warned him against making any political remarks, either for or against, before the guy began to speak. It's not like the guy didn't get in trouble until after he said his piece.
Finally, if standing up and arguing that the surge is working and people should give it a chance isn't political, then how is it political to make an anti-war argument?
Sorry but I couldn't get past the standard chickenhawk drivel in the first paragraph at Kos - so I don't know which lie Little Mac Clarke told.
When your side gets some intellectuals on your side that can tell the difference between national security and politics, let me know.
If only I had known it was this easy to win arguments, I could have saved myself a lot of research and thinking.
Shorter Jonn Lilyea: "ME NO LIKEY ARGUMENT. ME NO LIKELY CONTRARY EVIDENCE TO MY CLAIMS. ME NO LIKEY YOU. I win."
Sorry but I couldn't get past the standard chickenhawk drivel in the first paragraph at Kos - so I don't know which lie Little Mac Clarke told.
Well, go back and try again. Otherwise cease posting here. Or visit your local library and take a remedial reading course. And then return and construct a valid counterpoint.
Yearlykos not billed as a political convention? Did John Lilyea check that? From the Yearlykos-website:
From wikipedia:
OK, I did read the post, despite the intellectually vacant chickenhawk drivel in the beginning, and then for good measure, at the end. Rakkasan is only speculating that the sergeant was told by Lil Mac that he shouldn't wear the uniform - hearsay.
And I suspect that because it took more than three days for Rak's post to be published, they needed to get their stories straight.
Oh, and the link to the YearlyKos says it's a "nonpartisan, grassroots" event. Check your wikipedia for the definition of grassroots and nonpartisan.
In case none of you bothered to read my "about" page, I spent twenty years as a noncommissioned officer in the active duty Army. I guess I'd know what is authorized in uniform and what is not authorized.
And before you throw the chickenhawk label at me, I requested to return to active duty just last week and if the Army accepts my application I'll go back on in September after 13 years of being out.
Oh, by the way, the fellow who tried to defend Kokesh with the idiot garbage about name tags; the guy was in the Marines, their uniforms are stenciled with an anchor and globe. Since we're throwing Kos links around look at the photo here;
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/2/142332/0502
Now if he wore a uniform without the stencil, I might agree with you - but he didn't. Sorry - you shouldn't be such a chickendove, then you'd know what you're talking about instead of trolling your responses from Kokesh's blog.
From the Wikipedia entry for Grassroots: A grassroots political movement is one... [emphasis mine]
From the entry for nonpartisan: [nonpartisan] denotes organizations that do not have formal alignment with a political party.
Neither definition, you will note, says that either grassroots or nonpartisan means non-political. In fact, both terms normally are used to describe organizations that are primarily political in nature.
I hadn't read your about page, but it does seem you have some expertise. That being the case, could you explain to me under what conditions it is appropriate for a reservist who is not currently on active duty to wear the Class-A uniform to a function that is clearly non-military in nature.
We both know, I'm guessing, that the answer to that question is "under no conditions." That, of course, leads to the question of why this reservist was wearing his uniform at the YearlyKos convention. I think the answer to that was that he was wearing the uniform specifically for the purpose of making a political statement. Why do you think he was wearing it?
Good for you - and I say that without any sarcasm whatsoever.
That would be me, and that doesn't change the fact that he had removed his nametapes. It also doesn't change the fact that you can buy marine fatigues in surplus stores, or the fact that nobody could make the case that a civilian who dressed as Kokesh did and who protested in the same way that he did was guilty of impersonating a Marine. Personally, I think that it's hard to make the case that the conduct was "in uniform" under those conditions, particularly given that Kokesh's connection to the military was limited to his role in the IRR.
If you want to paint that view as left wing apologetics, that's your business, but I have the same perspective on the protesting in uniform charges that the VFW does.
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/pretend-us-ranger-jesse-macbeth-…
How quickly every one on the left especially the Kos folks have forgotten about jesse! This typifies the double standard of the leftist/socialist mind.
You have my best wishes.
Richard Vankirk, could you flesh out your argument for those of us that aren't "leftist/socialists" and aren't "kos Folks"? Particularly how this macbeth phoney-ranger issue bears on the point Mike is making about a sergeant appearing in uniform at a political event?
Your post suggests that, in light of this macbeth thing, you believe what the sergeant did was okay. Or did I get that wrong?
TIA.