« The two faces of Kos | Main | MADD As A Hatter »

DeKostructing A Myth In The Making

My colleagues Jim and Lorie have already had their take on the shouting-down of Sgt. David Aguina at the Yearly Kos Konvention, when he tried to speak to a panel on the military and progressive bloggers while in uniform. Their pieces are excellent, but I want to have my share of the fun, too.

There have been a variety of explanations of just why moderator John Soltz cut off Sgt. Aguina so forcefully. In situations like this, I tend to pay the most attention to the first versions -- they tend to be the most honest, and haven't had the chance to be re-calculated and engineered to best fit reactions.

The key element seems to be Sgt. Aguina's wearing of his uniform, and military regulations regarding the appropriate (and inappropriate) things to do while in uniform.

The regulations are fairly clear: his wearing the uniform at the Konvention was most likely inappropriate. Various and sundry people have argued whether the Konvention was, by military law, a "political" event; whether what he was preparing to say constituted "political" speech; and just which military regulations he was brushing up against.

I'm no military lawyer, but common sense tells me that if it's that debatable, Sgt. Aguina probably should have played it safe and not risked running afoul of regulations.

So that is the explanation from the Kossacks: they were looking to protect Sgt. Aguina from the consequences of his actions.

But that doesn't jibe with the words and tone of the moderator. Soltz wasn't warning Aguina, he was threatening. "If you ask me a political question, I'm going to take you outside... you want me to come down there?" And, after the sound is turned back on: "For the sergeant... I will see you outside. 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."

That is a clear threat.

I have two problems with this. (Actually, I have a lot more than two, but I'll limit myself to just two for now.)

First of all, Soltz is appointing himself the enforcer of military law. There's a term for that sort of thing -- "vigilante." And it's usually the province of the right wing, to take the law into one's own hands, not the left.

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. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with military law (and I barely qualify) would have known that "Thomas" was violating serious regulations -- if his accounts were true, he had failed to report them to his chain of command (like this hero did); if they were false, he was slandering and dishonoring his comrades. In either case, the point remains: the reports should NOT have first surfaced in his girlfriend/fiancee/wife's magazine.

Secondly, it's an insult to Sgt. Aguina. It presumes that he acted in ignorance, and needed to be protected from his deeds.

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.

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.

All, of course, in the name of peace and justice and equality.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23166.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DeKostructing A Myth In The Making:

» Wizbang linked with Civil Law

Comments (62)

Three observations... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

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 ... (Below threshold)
Strick:

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 le... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

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 t... (Below threshold)

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 pro... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

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... (Below threshold)
LiberalNightmare:

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 ... (Below threshold)
Brian The Adequate Author Profile Page:

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 th... (Below threshold)

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 sti... (Below threshold)
Strick:

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... (Below threshold)

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:<block... (Below threshold)

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 Pro... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"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 quest... (Below threshold)
Anonymous:

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 co... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"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:<... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

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... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
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 a... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

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 ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Is barneyG' really dumb as he sounds?

Since we're demanding hones... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

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' reacti... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"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 di... (Below threshold)

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 th... (Below threshold)
Howcome:

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 hypo... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

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 violati... (Below threshold)
kim:

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

This Sergeant, a member of ... (Below threshold)
Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

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 libera... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

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... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

"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.

VeeshirI don't for... (Below threshold)
JFO:

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:... (Below threshold)
marc:

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.

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.

Again opinion, laced with second hand information. ("I later learned") From who Clark, someone else, we have no idea. It's just as possible Clark was "getting agitated" because of the message and not the messenger or what he was wearing.

"Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant's opinion...."

More second hand info.

Surely you can do better GRUBBLE. But at least you gave a link. What does that make, maybe 3 times out of the last hundred?

No, I'm not a life-long lib... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

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 h... (Below threshold)
Robin Roberts:

Yep, Veeshir, you'd think he'd be busy in the studio but no, he's here bothering good people.

What #9 and #11 said.... (Below threshold)
jim:

What #9 and #11 said.

We can push this around all day, with "The Left's bad!" "No, the Right's bad!" all day long. And not really get much of anywhere.

But the bottom line of this is: the guy appeared at a plainly political event, with a plainly political purpose, in a military uniform. He was warned not to publicly speak about politics while in his uniform, by the speaker. He then persisted in publicly speaking about politics in his uniform.

We can argue all day about possible motives and underlying feelings on both sides, but the bottom line's right there in black and white.

Remember a little while ago, when a Marine veteran who's anti-Iraq occupation wore his uniform to a rally?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281936,00.html

He was had *already received* an honorable discharge, and his appearance at this rally got him an investigation. Then he flew off the handle and cursed at superiors in an email, all of which ended up in his discharge being downgraded to "general".

This is a serious thing here. And with good reason. We want our military to not be involved with politics. Just look at all the incestuous relationships between armed forces and political leaders in Latin America, and you can see why.

And as a result of the foo-foo-ra of all this, the actual issues aren't being discussed.

JFO , so long stupid.<br... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

JFO , so long stupid.
Posted by Veeshir:

"I think I'll vote GOP for the first time in 2008."

I voted GOP for the first time in 2004 and there wasn't even a second thought in my mind. It was either re-elect George W Bush Our American President who goes after our enemies and "IS NOT" preoccupied with having his pecker pecker pollished every hour on the hour or an ass pimple traitor and coward, John "Fraud" Kerry.


There are two types of people in this Country, AMERICANS and democrats. Last I heard this is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , not the Territory of the Democrat Party of Perpetual fraud.

It has totally escaped some... (Below threshold)

It has totally escaped some here that no one has said Sgt Aguina was right to do what he did. As a matter of fact, I and others have clearly stated that he made a conscious decision to break the rules. I even opined that when one breaks the rules they should be prepared to accept the consequences.

I'd like to know who it is you, "jim", "Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican", "barneyG2000" and "Anonymous" are arguing with in your reiterations of "he broke military law".

What has you upset is the fact that some here might actually hold an opinion about things related to the incident, so you come in here with the "he broke the rules so it's a cut and dried situation" attitude. In respects to the fact that he did indeed break a law, it is indeed cut-and-dried. So you can quit arguing that point. You're simply trying to limit discussion to avoid aspects pertaining to the issue.

There's another thread here in which Markos himself is quoted to defend another military man who wore his uniform to an anti-war protest. Even though there are some technicalities to that case that have yet to be settled upon, Markos did not use those technicalities as part of his argument. He emphatically stated that Mr. Kokesh had already been discharged without citing the mitigating fact that his obligations were not completed until June 28th. and the case is still, to my knowledge, not settled. Not one single regular Wizbang lefty has commented yet on that thread.

Also, you don't seem to hold any opinion or actively ignore the fact that there were panelists at the Kos convention who are still active military actually moderating political discussion and their military credentials are exactly what they use to qualify their opinions. They're just not breaking the rules by doing it in uniform.

I fully understand the reasoning behind prohibiting political speech while in uniform. The idea is to keep politics and the military separate at least by appearance. But just how separate are they being kept when we have active duty members moderating political discussion in a widely publicized venue where the vast majority of its attendees are against this war?

Rob, what's your preferred ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Rob, what's your preferred form of crystal meth? Do you go for Robitussin-based formulas, or are you more of a home-grown solvents man?

Oyster, was this Kos Konven... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oyster, was this Kos Konvention at the Banana Republic?
=================================

Uh Oh! Now it seems Dicky D... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Uh Oh! Now it seems Dicky Durbin broke a few senate ethic rules using the senate seal to politic. The dems lack of leadership is the gift that keeps giving all year round.

Jim, as stated above, I do not believe ANY liberal has good intentions for our brave soldiers. Remember, just recently the DailyKos posted a story saying they were immoral killers and retarded. So, for you liberals to try to convince us that you have our troops best intentions in mind is insulting. ww

RobLaCal:Democ... (Below threshold)
marc:

RobLaCal:

Democrat Party of Perpetual fraud

The "sage" words of Wizbang's One Trick Pony.

Aside from the "right wingers" you give humans a bad name

Jim loses again, what an ... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Jim loses again, what an ass zit.

Difference Between Left and Right


One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut aircut.
After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, "I cannot
accept money from you. 'I'm doing community service this week." The florist
is pleased and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open his shop, there is a thank you
card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the
barber again replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community
service this week." The cop is happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a
dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill
the barber again replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing
community service this week." The Republican is very happy and leaves the
shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a
dozen different books, such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming
More Successful."

Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the
barber again replies, "I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community
service this week." The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen
Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left
and right.""

Maybe this will cheer you up Jim.LOL doubtsooser

Jim, as stated above, I ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, as stated above, I do not believe ANY liberal has good intentions for our brave soldiers.

ww, if you actually sincerely believe that liberals hate the military, then I honestly don't think arguing with you about it will make you change your mind.

But that's a whole separate argument, from the bottom line: the soldier was in fact in clear violation of a rather important law.

So for you guys to tout this as something that "proves" anything other than this guy was told he was violating a rather important principle, and then continued to violate it - well, it's your right to believe that, just like it's people's right to believe in a flat earth. It's simply not backed up by the facts.

Looks like my question's an... (Below threshold)
jim:

Looks like my question's answered - you're smoking some pretty good stuff there, Rob.

Here's some fun:

Difference Between Rob La Ca and reality:

One day a Republican named Rob La CA goes to a barber for a haircut.

When his hair is cut, Rob hands him a 6-inch American flag on a stick, and heads towards the door. The barber replies, "Uh, hey there. The flag's nice, but I actually need this money to pay for the shop, my family, and me. You know, that stuff."

Rob La CA says, "Are you a corporation? If you were, you could just incorporate off the Cayman Islands and have a free tax dodge. Probably get some slave labor, too. Save at least $10.50 that way. Tell you what - just write off my haircut as a consulting fee."

The barber says, "Uh, yeah. I'm just a small businessman. That's $10.50?"

Rob La CA the Republican says, "Did you know that all liberals hate business? Just give me this haircut, in exchange for this awesome information which everyone knows is true."

The Barber says, "Uh, yeah. Big high-tech CEO's running Apple and Google hate money and business. And all of Hollywood, they just hate business and want to make less money. Fascinating. $10.50?"

Then Rob La CA the Republican says "If you just let me hold onto that money, I'll have more money to spend on big business instead! Which means they'll spend more money on workers, which means you'll have more money to spend on you somehow when it all trickles down."

The barber then says: "How can you guarantee that the big company will even spend their extra money in the US? Or even spend it at all, as opposed to just putting it away somewhere?"

Rob LA Ca responds "...uh...."

The barber then says, "And how can you guarantee the money that *might* make me, could even equal the $10.50 I need right now?"

Rob La CA then eyes the doorway and says, "You know, you should feel lucky you don't live in an oppressive communist country like Canada, or you wouldn't have the privilege of paying thousands to insure your family and possibly being denied if you ever get sick anyway. Remember, you can still get emergency treatment free, and you'll only have to mortgage your house to pay for it. Just let me have that $10.50, as my free speech contribution to McCain/Lieberman 2008. That's progress!"

The barber then says, "OK pal. Look. I cut your hair. Why don't you do something for me, instead of some big business you fetishize, and just pay me and get out?"

ROb La CA then says, "I knew it! You hate big business! I would never pay you! Money to you means supporting Michael Moore and flag-burning, and you hate fetuses! And I have a gun, which you liberals don't!"

Then the barber pulls out a gun, and says "Wrong again."

At which point Rob La Ca pays the man, and then claims to be mad because the man challenged his integrity.

I am reminded of the case P... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

I am reminded of the case Plessy v Fergason, the case that helped establish "separate but equal" and the Jim Crow laws. In it, railroad cars were assigned to black or white. Justice Harlan's famous dissent in part went like this:

"...everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons."

They were deluding themselves that separate but equal, was equal.

And so it is today. Everyone knows that the purpose was to shut up Sgt. Aquina, not some noble move to "save" him from himself.

Anything else is delusional.

Robert, using a defense of ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robert, using a defense of an unfair Jim Crow law, to rationalize how the application of a fair law "must be" bad because you agree with the person who was breaking the law, is interesting...

How do you feel about Kokesh, the anti Iraq occupation vet, who was disciplined for attending a protest in his uniform? Do you feel that it was wrong for pro-Iraq occupation people to bring this up against Kokesh?

"Aside from the "right wing... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

"Aside from the "right wingers" you give humans a bad name"

Get off your f&&ken high horse marc , I'm not claiming to be Conservative nor am I registered Republican so just leave me the f**k alone.

"Perpetual fraud" , Do you have a better description ? If so lets hear it.

Quit being such A-hole marc , you haven't a clue what I'm doing nor is it any of your business.

Jim,"Difference ... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Jim,

"Difference Between Rob La Ca and reality:"

I actually live in it you fool. You still can't remember simple facts from one day to the next.Smoke on Jim

"RobLACal." "Republican?"

Are you conscience?

RobLaCal:Get o... (Below threshold)
marc:

RobLaCal:

Get off your f&&ken high horse marc , I'm not claiming to be Conservative nor am I registered Republican so just leave me the f**k alone.

It matters not a single wit what you are, your constant and everlasting string of invective and very seldom offering anything of substance is the point. Not what political affiliation you claim.

In short you're no different than Lee Ward

The microphone does seem to... (Below threshold)
LAB:

The microphone does seem to be shut off in the above video, so you can't hear what Aguina is saying. Here is another link with Aguina's part in the conversation and aftermath.(Click on video button) Aguina may have had an ulterior motive with showing up in uniform, but I don't believe it was meant to be disrespectful He just wanted to be heard. Here is an interview with Aguina, explaining his side. Aguina returned in civilian clothes, but said in the video that Stolz was going to try to have him dishonorably discharged.

Marc, Rob, knock it off. Ta... (Below threshold)

Marc, Rob, knock it off. Take it to e-mail if you wanna keep squabbling, but keep it outta MY posting.

J.

Correction: I guess the guy... (Below threshold)
LAB:

Correction: I guess the guy's name is Soltz, but so far, I've seen it spelled three different ways. :p

JT:Maybe if you we... (Below threshold)
marc:

JT:

Maybe if you were as fair using "the hook" as some have done with Lee Ward it wouldn't be left to someone else to smack the disingenuous buffoon around a little.

Not to mention some of the leftist trolls can do just as I have done and not a word is said that I recall.

And BTW, in a small way you just validated what he has dome and will continue to do.

"Great" job, but not up to your usual standards.

Jim,That it is wro... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Jim,

That it is wrong to wear a uniform to a political event has long been conceded. Both cases.

My point, which you missed, is that in drawing attention to it only when he raised an uncomfortable point, not say, when he was admitted or walking about, is an indication of the true motive here.

Justice Harlan noted the true motive in that case long ago, and called them on it.

Do you admit then, that the true motive of KOS was to shut Aquina up, not to enforce the law or to save the man from himself?

While Brookings, AP, NYT, N... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

While Brookings, AP, NYT, Newsweek and Wapo have all noted in various ways that the surge is working, KOS remains a holdout.

That Aquina was shouted down further confirms the point, not that we expected anything else. They have an agenda to end the war, not necessarily to report accurately about it.

It is obvious, but a warning to us all, that if one excludes all input from one whole side of an argument, you will tend to be a one-sided guy. You put lots of one-sided guys together, each reinforcing each other, and toss in a few other ingredients like pandering from office seekers, then the conditions will be right to create a Ward Churchill.

Scary, freakin' scary.

And although KOS will be very happy with themselves, it will be very hard to take them seriously if so easily they are able to block out the truth when inconvenient.

"It is obvious, but a wa... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"It is obvious, but a warning to us all, that if one excludes all input from one whole side of an argument, you will tend to be a one-sided guy. You put lots of one-sided guys together, each reinforcing each other, and...[ voila, you've got Jay Tea and the Wizbang gang.]" Robert the Original

Actually FF, Mr. Tea freque... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Actually FF, Mr. Tea frequently includes arguments from the other side in his posts, as indeed he did in this one.

He occupies a spot much closer to the center than do you.

Your screen name belies you: only half as clever as you think and twice as revealing.

Has anyone been able to mak... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Has anyone been able to make a comment at the kos kiddies site and not been banned if it went against them? hmmmmm

Jhow66... Mine lasted maybe... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Jhow66... Mine lasted maybe 30 seconds once. That a record? (course, I was wearing my uniform at the time)

jhow, ran:not to h... (Below threshold)

jhow, ran:

not to honk my own horn, but...

I have.

Wasn't easy, though...

J.

I would like to put my 2 ce... (Below threshold)
just4kicks:

I would like to put my 2 cents into this pot! Did anyone really expect, for any of the kos crowd to play fair or by the rules or treat anyone who disagrees with any thing they believe. Its totally what they do best! They don't care about the facts and the Sergeant was tilting @ wind mills

An apt analogy, just4kicks,... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

An apt analogy, just4kicks, and Don Quixote too appeared in uniform.

Equally futile yes, but not equally delusional.

Aquina did indeed identify and confront his true enemy, futile though it may have been.

Good reading Jay!! Wish I c... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Good reading Jay!! Wish I could put my thoughts into words the way you do. The answers you got showed the mental capacity of those that you were dealing with. Funny tho they all seemed to sound like a broken record. Oh yeah, I read down a little further and learned that they do no ban-it is that "tu's" (trusted users-lol) are the only one that get to see certain comments. LMAO




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy