Three observations

Why was he given the opportunity to speak in the first place? He was in uniform and what he said was likely going to be political. Could it be because they were expecting he would reinforce their view?

Although the right is actually lamenting the double standard applied to Sgt. Aquina. The right will be accused of calling for a double standard.

Attacking him has worked. We've spent all the time discussing whether or not he should be in trouble. And almost nothing on what exactly he said and how it made Kosworld uncomfortable. Without this part, you can't make the point Sgt. Aquina is getting a double Standard applied to him.

I can think of little more useless than anything related to Kos, but I have to take their side here.

If you listen closely, early in the exchange, the moderator warns the sergeant in fairly kind tones that he does not want him to make a statement either for or against what they had just discussed in uniform. The moderator seem to be suggesting that he come down to talk to the sergeant offline before the sergeant spoke and he only "threatened" the sergeant after the statement was completed. It's easy to see he starts pretty mild and becomes increasingly irritated as the sergeant continues to speak against his advice.

Sorry, after listening closely to the recording, on this one, I buy what Kos said they were trying to do.

The fact that I don't like these guys isn't enough to overcome the evidence of my own ears, no matter how attractive the narrative.

According to Strick, the left is concerned about speech that will get you in trouble. Also, the party that does not support or even want our military, all of a sudden are trying to protect them? Nah. Doesn't pass the smell test. I will base my opinion of four decades of experience in watching the left denigrate our military. ww

Strick,

Perhaps the moderator warns him in "fairly kind tones" before the statement was made, but then pretty much threatens to turn him in to his commander (for retribution) after the statement is made, like Willie said, it doesn't pass the smell test. If Soltz just wanted to warn him, then the Sgt would have made his statement and that would be it. No shouting and meeting backstage so the lynching of a babykiller can begin. Like Jay Tea said, all they really care about is making sure people agree with them...

And it's usually the province of the right wing, to take the law into one's own hands, not the left.

Illustrating absurdity by being absurd, I hope?

If Sgt. Aquina had stood up at that microphone and echo'd the KOS party line they would have carried him out of that room on thier shoulders and posed the sgt and his uniform in front of as many cameras as they could find.

The typically leftish reaction only came when they realized that he wasnt going to sing thier song. Suddenly they were more concerned with making sure they have the name of Aquina's First Sgt then the sgt's right to free speech.

Don't forget that Stoltz's votevets.org profile has his picture in uniform. As the site is blatently partisan, I can't give Stoltz any benefit oft he doubt. If the soldier had been echoing the party line rather than injecting information that was inconvenient to the Kossack argument, then he would have been allowed to speak.

Why there is even such a thing as a Kos military panel escapes me. Other than the fact that they used it to continue to politicize the war while castigating anyone who tries to separate war and politics, it has no purpose.

If this young man broke military law, then he should be reprimanded. But in the real world there is no difference between him and those on that panel. They're using military credentials to bolster their view, their "consensus". They simply stayed within the law and just weren't wearing the uniform.

If he'd been in civilian clothes I sincerely believe he would have been shouted down and booed by the whole crowd.

Well, I'm a "26%er" who still supports Bush and the war and who's voted Repubican in every election since Nixon's second term.

I know that Bush didn't lie about the Iraq intelligence (OK, it did have a bit of top spin) and Cheney never said Saddam had nukes because I looked at what they really said for myself with an open mind. Figure I owe the other guy the same level of honesty, or I'm not one danged bit different from the moonbats I have the least use for. YMMV

In this case, what I see and hear (sorry, no smellovison) is the moderator warning the sergeant gently not to speak either for or against what's been discussed in uniform and getting more and more angry as the sergeant refuses to listen to what he had to say or take the conversation offline.

Watch the video for yourself. The comment about not speaking in uniform for or against is rather soft, but it's clear if you take the time to listen. You do have to listen though, because smell alone won't cut it.

Would you please link to Mr. Soltz' embracing of Private Beauchamp that you mentioned here:

If Soltz and his ilk were that concerned about military regulations and decorum, they would not have been so quick to embrace the accounts of "Private Scott Thomas/Scott Thomas Beauchamp" The New Republic published.

Regarding this:

The Kossacks' reaction was entirely typical, and sums up so much about their version of political discourse -- everyone is free to say how much they agree with us. But if you cross us, we will destroy you.

Ezra Klein responds better than I can:

It's fascinating to watch how gleefully the Right has picked up on my retelling of yesterday's shouting match between a uniformed soldier and Jon Soltz, the head of Vote Vets. To be sure, I found the exchange disturbing -- that's why I wrote about it. But then, I didn't spend the last few weeks not only shouting down, but harassing, intimidating, investigating, slurring, discrediting, and attacking a soldier currently stationed in Iraq because he wrote a New Republic column I didn't like.

SO let's be clear here: No one at the Kos panel searched out the questioner's wedding registry, no one at the Kos panel dug up his old poetry to embarrass him, no one at the Kos panel speculated on what a terrible soldier he is and how much he must have slowed his unit down, no one at the Kos panel unearthed his MySpace page, no one at the Kos panel said "he'd better watch his ass."

"As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties."American Prospect

Sgt. David Aguina (young man in uniform) is wrong: the number of US casualties in July was down to 79, however the Iraqi casualties have increased during the surge.

I was at the panel in question at YearlyKos, and while I completely agree that we should have some discussion about what actually happened, I do think there's a glaring omission from this "dekostruction" that nobody on your side of this debate has been very intellectually honest about: Why was Sgt. Aguina wearing his uniform to begin with?

If we're going to talk about what people's underlying motivations may (or may not have) been, isn't fair to ask the same question of Sgt. Aguina? My sense is, that most likely, he wore the uniform to give himself more credibility, and becuase it is generally more intimidating to show up in your full uniform in order to make your point.

And I think we ought to all understand why that's a problem. It is, in fact, the exact reason why the military forbids soldiers to wear their uniform while engaging in political speech. Becuase the military uniform is itself a symbol that carries weight and sends a message; which is exactly what Sgt. Aguina was trying to use it for.

Sgt. Aguina could have easily gone to the panel in civilian clothes, publicly stated that he was a member of the military, and been fine. Instead, he chose to use his military uniform to bolster his political position. And that's wrong.

If you want hammer Soltz for over-reacting, fine. I think it's a perfectly fair argument, but if you're really going to have an honest discussion about why Soltz reacted the way he did, you ought to also be talking honestly about why Aguina did what he did. He was using his military uniform for political reasons. It's the only explanation as for why you would show up in full uniform to the YearlyKos convention. And it's an impropoper use of his status in the military. Period. Full stop.

"I want the name of your commander and your first sergeant; you will never ever use my uniform again in the name of political purposes."

First of all, Soltz is appointing himself the enforcer of military law. There's a term for that sort of thing -- "vigilante." " By Jay

Jay, since when did reporting an infraction become "vigilante"? I guess if I witness a crime and call 911 I too would be a vigilante. GIve me a break.

From Soltz's myspace page:

fargolevy99 | August 05, 2007
Soltz is a pussy - I served with this piece of shit loser for over a year. Couldn't name one good thing about him if I had to.

And blueneponset, that is a ridiculous comparison, Sgt, Aguina wasn't smearing the military, or anyone for that matter, with ridiculous, obviously false fantastical stories.

I was at the panel in question at YearlyKos, and while I completely agree that we should have some discussion about what actually happened, I do think there's a glaring omission from this "dekostruction" that nobody on your side of this debate has been very intellectually honest about: Why was Sgt. Aguina wearing his uniform to begin with?

Well, "Anonymous", you seem to have missed this paragraph in the article above:

From Jay Tea: I think that there's another possibility here. (For the record, I have not read or seen or listened to any of the interviews with Sgt. Aguina. I have done so deliberately before writing this, so I would not be basing my opinion on any more information than Soltz or any of the other Kossacks would have had at the time of the incident.) Perhaps Sgt. Aguina carefully weighed the possible consequences of his deeds and decided -- after due consideration -- that the opportunity to "speak truth to power" and address the Kos panelists was worth his career. That he was using his military status to commit a true act of civil disobedience, and wanted to make that statement before any and all to see -- that he was there to speak truth, to present facts, and if the manner of his presentation brought serious consequences on him, that was the price he was prepared to pay.

Had I been there (a laughable thought), I would have cautioned him in the strongest possible terms, made certain he knew precisely what he was risking -- but I would not have shouted him down. He made his choice, and I would have respected that.

You certainly have the right to your opinion and even your assumption:

It's the only explanation as for why you would show up in full uniform to the YearlyKos convention.

... but, if you choose to lecture others on "intellectual honesty", then you should practice it yourself.

Jay Tea clearly discussed precisely what you claim that "no one on your side has done".

Now, if you truly are intellectually honest, please explain why Stoltz, who's own actions on the subject is at best questionable, qualifies as the arbiter in this case. If it is as crystal clear as you claim that "it is the only explanation ...", then why should he take it upon himself to silence the soldier in question? If the soldier had a perfect knowledge of his actions, as you suggest, then he also had a perfect knowledge of their consequences and logically would have been prepared to accept those consequences. As Jay Tea said - his choice.

So, from an "intellectually honest" POV, why did Stotz silence the soldier instead of simply stating what you found obvious and then letting the soldier make his choice?

The actions of KOS during and after the convention puts them in the class of a democrat Political Lobby/fund raising organization, and as such should fall under all electon laws and be required to report (quarterly) every penny received and spent as 'politicial contributions to the democrat party'. The FEC had better be on the ball on this one. All post and comments on KOS can now be considered the position of the DNC and the party. Isn't it great when they stab themselves in the eye with an ice pick.

Is barneyG' really dumb as he sounds?

Since we're demanding honesty here, can we talk about Markos' own defense of a soldier wearing the uniform at an anti-war rally and the panelists' lack of opinion on the matter? I mean, this convention was in Markos' own name. Can we talk about the glorification of the panelists' own military records as it is used at length to qualify their sentiments?

I'm not trying to derail the discussion from the clear distinction between the two facts that one was attempting to engage in political discussion in uniform and the others were not. I've already conceded the fact that breaking the rules should be followed with prescribed punishments. I'm just trying to establish some very important factors in relation to a much larger issue at hand here; active military and their political expression.

I can't comfortably say that if Sgt. Aguina had been in civilian garb he would have been given the opportunity to express his opinion without harrassment.

It appears that the Sgt was on a mission to disrupt the convention. He pulled the same stunt the previous night:

"Suddenly, into the ballroom marched an Army sergeant. And this sergeant was on a mission. You could tell, because he was wearing his Class A green Army uniform. ...

The sergeant immediately zeroed in on General Clark and engaged him in a conversation. Eventually, I noticed Clark pull the soldier aside and move away from the rest of the crowd. I could see that the General was getting agitated. I later learned that the soldier had been lecturing him, telling him that the U.S. military should stay in Iraq and that General Clark should support the President's policies.

Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant's opinion, political activism while in uniform was both inappropriate and illegal--and to do it at the much-publicized YearlyKos Convention would put the soldier in an unnecessary and precarious legal position. He told the sergeant firmly but politely that it would be in the soldier's best interest to leave. And that was the end of it until the next day."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/3940/86488

"The Kossacks' reaction was entirely typical, and sums up so much about their version of political discourse -- everyone is free to say how much they agree with us. But if you cross us, we will destroy you"

This is an extremist right nutroot reaction to the incident w/ David Aguina at YKos. The event was not a "town-hall" w/ invited audience participation; this incident w/ Aquina was an attempt at disruption from someone in the audience, in full uniform to boot. It was like the ex-marine Ollie North testifying before Congress in full uniform solely for the sake of intimidation. If Tea had any intellectual honesty, he would have pondered Aquina's real purpose for appearing in uniform.

This right nutroots uproar is a bunch of crap, stirred up by Matt ( to paraphrase Coulter, I'd have to do rehab if I said "faggot" ) Drudge and a firebrand hate-mongerer, Michelle (Slattern) Malkin.

The Aquina affair is just the usual much-ado-about- nothing from this bell-wringing duo, dutifully picked up and slavered over by all the Pavlov puppies who dwell in the land of the extreme rightie kookosphere, yelping and whimpering over matters of faux importance.

And I found Clarke's own disingenuousness astounding. While he laments the media's portrayal (or lack of good coverage) of the Vietnam War (he spoke of a very specific incident which got no coverage) and the poor treatment from the left of those soldiers, many of these people are the very one's he now embraces. Many are young and have no direct knowledge of how things were then, but there are many who have simply carried the same sentiments from that time into the present. They have not yet realized we are in a different world today.

Barney Said, "It appears that the Sgt was on a mission to disrupt the convention". Walking into a KOS convention in an Army uniform is considered being on a mission to disrupt. He also had the nerve to support the war he has been fighting. Sort of like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

FF, do you not see the hypocrisy of your comments? You speak of hate-mongering while you spew out your disparaging name-calling. You're free to do so, but don't expect everyone to ignore your own slathering hatefulness.

Oyster, you will wear your fingers out trying to teach FF anything. All hateful rant at all times.

Spin away lefties, but face it, the liberals never cared for the military, ever. So to think the ultra liberals would be concerned about a soldier is laughable. ww

What about Soltz in violation of Article 88, the point Moran got from Aguina in Lorie's post?
===============================

This Sergeant, a member of the Army Reserve clearly violated AR 670-1 as to when and where you may wear the uniform. You are not allowed to put on your uniform to go shopping because you want to. You are not allowed to put on your uniform to go to your dentist appointment. You are allowed to wear your uniform to go to drill and a small number of other circumstances. You can wear the uniform to a Non Commissioned Officers Association Conference you may not wear it to a Kos conference.

This Sergeant, who has worn a uniform to other activities in violation of the regulations, is a disgrace to the NCO Corps. He should loose a stripe and be returned to being a SP4.

It is not about what he said, it is about violating regulations on where you may wear the uniform.

Well, as a life-long liberal and long-time Democratic voter (I voted for Jimmy Carter... twice), I applaud what this soldier did and now, I think I'll vote GOP for the first time in 2008.

Oh, and jhow66, we're all wondering that. I'm not sure if it's possible for someone to be as stupid as Barney appears, but who knows? I never would have thought it was possible that bloggers would want to form a union and demand medical benefits (from whom?) either.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation." - WC Fields.

And wasn't that the real issue here?

Sgt. Aquina, probably in violation and possibly in sacrifice, wanted the situation faced - by any fair measure, the surge is working.

Even the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, has noticed.

But KOS, unwilling to hear this, have blinded themselves to the truth.

And truth matters.

Veeshir

I don't for a second believe you are a life long liberal. But on the off chance you were I welcome your departure to the Republicans. Please take Joe "I.m a dem, err repub, err deomrepubo, err geez I'm getting too old for this" Liberman with you.
Any one would allegedly change their affiliation based on your reasoning belongs with Republicans. You clearly deserve one another. Thanks for leaving, don't let the donkey hit you in the a** on the way out.

barneyGRUBBLE:

"Suddenly, into the ballroom marched an Army sergeant. And this sergeant was on a mission. You could tell, because he was wearing his Class A green Army uniform. ...

That's a DKos Kiddies opinion, not fact.

No, I'm not a life-long liberal, I'm just a jerk who likes to make fun of all the life-long Republicans we get around here who smell of Moby.

Yep, Veeshir, you'd think he'd be busy in the stud